UPREME  LOURT  OF  ILLINOIS 


The  Anarchists'  Cases. 


Briek   kor   the    DEKEND>VNTS, 


LEONARD    SWETT. 


CHICAGO: 

BAENAKD  &  GUNTHOKP,   LaW  PRINTERS,  44  .t  40  LaSaLLE  STREET. 
1887. 


Index. 


Page. 

"Charges 1 

Oscar  Neebe ;^ 

Samuel   Fielden.     Inculpalorv  evidence o 

"  "  Exciilpalorj         "        7 

Albert  R.  Parsons.     Inculpatory  evidence 11 

"  "  Exculpatorj         "         12 

Michael  Schwab.     Inculpatory  evidence 15 

"  "  Exculpatorv         "         16 

August  Spies.     Inculpatory  evidence 23 

"  "  Exculpatory         " 81 

The  bomb  was  not  thrown  from  the  alley 86 

Gilmer  impeached 40 

Gilmei's  contradictory  statements 41 

jMcCormick  meeting  and  revenge  circular 42 

Ruhe 48 

Character  of  Haymarket  meeting 50 

Fischer  and  Engel.     Inculpatory  evidence  54 

Fischer  at  Zepf's  Hall,  at  the  time  ci  the  explosion 84 

Engel.     Exculpatory  evidence 59 

Louis  Lingg.     Inculpatory  e\idence 60 

Remarks  on  Liiigg's  position (Mi 

Illegal  Evidence:  68 

1.  Most's  Book 68 

2.  liloody  Clothes 71 

8.     Letter  of  Most  to  Spies 71 

4.  Bombs  and  Fulminating  Caps 76 

5.  Combustible  Tin  Cans 77 

6.  Flags,  Mottoes,  etc 77 

7.  Circumstances  under  which  the  foregoing  were  found 72 

8.  Constitutional  Provisions 74 

!).     Bovd  :•    United  States,  construing  the  constitution 75 

10.     Effect  of  illegal  evidence  on  a  verdict 77 

Who    of  these    defendants    were,    and    who    were   not,   at    the  Hay- 
market  meeting 7!) 

Other  Illegal  Eviden'ce: 

1.      Schnaubelt's  Disguise 80 

Misapplicalion  of  the  law  of  conspiracy  in  the  trial.., 82 

One  crime  cannot  be  proved  to  establish  another 85 

Acts  to  be  admissible  must  be  in  furthei-ance  of  common  design !•() 

Conviction  without  proof  of  cor/>us  dcUcti 91 

What  ctjunseling  constitutes  accessory  ship  .  91 

Who  wants  them    hanged 93 


May  it  please  the  Court: 

The  record  in  this  case  embraces  all  the  evidence  in 
the  trial  below,  and  contains  more  than  8,000  pa^^es  of 
type-written  matter.  Of  this  an  abstract  has  been  made 
which  contains  about  500  pages.  To  get  a  comprehension 
of  what  these  contain  seems  to  be  the  work  of  months.  In 
order  therefore  to  present  the  facts  and  the  legal  questions 
arising,  I  have  endeavored  to  collate  and  arrange  from 
these,  in  reference  to  each  defendant,  all  evidence  for  and 
against  him,  and  afterwards  to  present  some  of  the  more 
prominent  legal  questions  arising  in  the  case. 

The  object  of  this  has  been  to  aid  the  court  in  grasp- 
ing the  case,  and  I  hope  I  have  succeeded. 


The  Charges. 

The  indictment,  so  far  as  supported  by  proof,  charges 
that  the  plaintiffs  in  error,  (r)  together  with  William 
Seliger  and  Rudolph  Schnaubelt,  on  the  fourth  day  of  May, 
1886,  threw  a  bomb  which  killed  Mathias  J.  Degan,  and  (2) 
that  they  aided,  abetted,  assisted,  advised  or  encouraged 
some  person  unknown  in   throwing  such  bomb. 

Our  statutes,  chapter  38  of  1874,  sections  274  and  275 
of  the  Criminal  Code,  are  as  follows: 

Section  2.  "  An  accessory  is  he  who  stands  by,  aids 
"  or  abets  or  assists,  or  who,  not  being  present  aiding, 
"  abetting  or  assisting,  hath  advised,  encouraged,  aided  or 
'•  abetted  in  the  perpetration  of  the  crime.  He  who  thus 
"  aids,  abets,  assists,  advises  or  encourages,  shall  be  con- 
"  sidered  as  principal,  and  punished  accordingly." 

Section  3.     "  Every  such  accessor}^,  when  a  crime   is 


"  committed  within  or  without  this  state,  by  his  aid  or  pro- 
"  curement  in  this  state,  may  be  indicted  and  convicted  at 
"  the  same  time  as  the  principal,  or  before  or  after  his  con- 
"  viction,  and  whether  the  principal  is  convicted  or  amen- 
"  able  to  justice  or  not,  and  punished  as  principal." 

The  question  is:  Are  these  defendants  guilty,  under  this 
indictment  and  this  law? 

This  case  comes  here  upon  writ  of  error  and  superse- 
deas. The  questions  presented  involve  a  review  of  the 
trial  below.  If  the  court  finds  that  material  error  was 
committed  there  it  will  grant  a  new  trial.  If  it  finds  no 
error  it  will  affirm  the  judgment,  and  seven  of  the  defend- 
ants will  be  hanged  and  one  will  go  to  the  penitentiary 
for  fifteen  years. 

Some  of  these  have  been  guilty  of  intemperance,  ex- 
travagance and  foolishness  of  speech  and  foolish  news- 
paper writing.  Because  of  these  facts,  and  the  crime 
of  a  stranger  in  no  way  legally  connected  with  them,  they 
were  found  guilty  of  murder  and  sentenced  to  be  hung. 

They  were  tried  in  times  and  under  circumstances  of 
great  popular  excitement,  and  much  irrelevant  and  unlaw- 
ful evidence  was  introduced  against  them.  Happily,  how- 
ever, under  the  laws  of  Illinois  a  person  cannot  be  hung 
for  foolishness  of  oratory  or  writing  foolish  newspaper 
articles;  nor  can  one  person  be  hung  for  the  act  of 
another.  Therefore  our  motion  for  a  new  trial  is  based 
first  upon  the  fact  that 

THE  DEFENDANTS  ARE  NOT  GUILTY. 

The  following  shows  the  evidence  for  and  aijainst  each 
defendant,  with  references  to  the  record  and  abstract  and 
brief.     Where   the   letter   "  A "  is   used  it   refers  to  the 


abstract,  where  "  B  "  is  used  it  refers  to  the  argument  of 
the  plaintiffs  in  error,  and  where  any  other  letter  is  used 
it  refers  to  the  record. 

I. 

Oscar  Neebe. 

He  was  found   guilty  of  murder   and   sentenced  to  the 
penitentiary  for  fifteen  years. 
Evidence — nothing. 

II. 

Samuel  Fielden. 

Evidence  for  the  prosecution. 

The  inculpatory  evidence  tends  to  establish  the  follow- 
ing propositions: 

I. 

HE  MADE  A  SPEECH  AT  THE  HAYMARKET  MEETING. 

He  tried  to  illustrate  that  the  law  only  protected  the 
employer,  and  afforded  no  protection  to  the  workingmen 
if  they  were  injured  in  their  interest.  He  spoke  of  the 
McCormick  riot  in  the  afternoon  of  the  3d  of  May,  the  day 
preceding  the  Haymarket  meeting,  on  the  west  side,  and 
said:  "Men,  in  their  blind  rage,  attacked  McCormick's 
factory."  (Rec,  K,  282;  Abst.,  132.)  By  these  words 
he  meant  the  workingmen  who  had  struck,  had  attacked 
the  factory  and  other  men  who  wanted  to  work  there. 
In  the  course  of  his  remarks  he  used  the  following  expres- 
sion: "  You  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  law,  except 
<'  to  lay  hands  on  it  and  throttle  it  until  it    makes   its   last 


"kick;  it  turns  your  brothers  out  on  the  wayside,  and 
"  has  degraded  them  until  they  have  lost  the  last  vestige 
"  of  humanity,  and  they  are  mere  things  and  animals. 
"  Keep  your  eye  upon  it,  throttle  it,  kill  it,  stab  it,  do 
"  everything  to  wound  it  or  impede  its  progress."  (K, 
282;  A.,  132.) 

II. 

HE    MADE    THREATS. 

(i.)  Officer  Quinn  testifies  (A.,  14)  that  when 
the  police  came  to  the  meeting  he  heard  Fielden  cry  out, 
when  zuithin  about  ffiy  feet  of  him:  "Here  come  the 
"blood-hounds  of  the  police!  Men,  do  your  duty  and  I 
"  will  do  mine." 

(2.)  Officer  Haas,  about  ten  or  fifteen  feet  dis- 
tant, heard  the  same  remark,  but  he  admits,  on  cross- 
examination,  that  although  a  witness  before  the  coroner's 
jury,  held  immediately  thereafter,  he  did  not  testify  to  that 
remark  (A.,  128;  K,  251,  268.) 

(3.)  Steele  heard  some  one  say:  '  "  Here  comes  the 
"  blood-hounds.  You  do  your  duty  and  we  will  do 
"  ours,"  the  sound  coming  from  in  front  of  the  line  in 
which  they  were  marching.      (A.,  13.) 

(4.)  Officer  Krueger,  when  about  twenty-five  feet 
from  the  wagon,  heard  sonic  one  say  something  like  the 
following.  He  should  judge  it  came  from  the  wagon,  but 
is  not  positive.  He  thinks  it  was  the  speaker  who  said  it: 
"  Here  they  are  now,  the  blood-hounds."      (A.,  17.) 

(5.)  Wessler  heard:  "  Here  comes  the  blood- 
"  hounds,"   but  does  not  know    who   made   the   remark. 


5 

(A.,  i8.)      It  was  made  when   his   company  was  on   the 
Randolph  street  car  tracks,  about  loo  feet  distant. 

(6.)  Bowler  heardy/-^^;//  somebody  close  to  the  wagon: 
"Here  come  the  blood-hounds."      (A.,  22.) 

(7.)  Doyle  heard  the  words:  "Now  is  your  time, 
"now  is  your  time;  "  <^_y  50  we/^oc^y  looking  like  Fielden. 
(A.,  25.)^ 

Two  witnesses,  one  away  about  fifty  feet  and  the  other 
ten  or  fifteen  feet  away,  heard  Fielden  make  these  re- 
marks. Five  heard  some  one  make  the  remark,  or  tliink 
it  was  Fielden. 

III. 

FIELDEN  FIRED  INTO  THE  POLICE. 

(i.)  QuiNN  also  swore  (A.,  14)  that  after  the  order  for 
the  dispersion  of  the  meeting  had  been  given  by  Captain 
Ward,  Fielden,  still  standing  on  the  zuagon,  drew  a  re- 
volver and  shot  at  Captain  Ward,  Captain  Bonfield  and 
Lieutenant  Steele,  grouped  together  from  four  to  six 
feet  from  him.  Just  before  such  shooting  Fielden  said: 
"  We  are  peaceable.''''  Witness  then  dropped  his  club 
and  discharged  his  revolver.  Immediately,  then,  the  bomb 
exploded.  Fielden,  therefore,  was  at  the  same  moment 
for  war  and  for  peace. 

IV. 

AN    ATTEMPT    TO    SHOW    FIELDEN    FIRED    TWO    OR    THREE 

SHOTS. 

(i^)  Krueger  (i,  245;  A.,  17).  Officer  Krueger 
swears    after    Fielden    got    down    he    stepped     one    step 


north  of  the  south  end  of  the  zvagon,  and  fired  two 
shots  at  the  column  of  police.  Krueger  then  saw  Fielden 
in  the  crowd  and  shot  Ficldcn.  Fielden  stag-gered^  but  did 
not  fall  to  the  ground,  and  ran  towards  the  alley.  (Rec, 
Vol.  I,  234  and  235;  Abst.,  17.) 

(2.)  Wessler  swears  after  the  bomb  exploded  he  ran 
north  on  the  sidewalk  to  Crane's  building, about  thirty  feet, 
then  hearing  the  order  "  Fall  in,"  he  ran  back;  saw  Fielden 
behind  the  zuagon  get  up  and  down  twice  and  shoot  at 
the  police;  then  Wessler  shot  Fielden  and  he /eV/  under 
the  zvagoji .      (251,  252.) 

(3.)      Foley  saw   Officer  Wessler  shoot  a  man   who 
was    lying    under    the    body    of  the    zuagon,    betivccn   the 
fore  and  hind  zvheels.      (268   to   275;   19,  20.) 

(4.)  Baumann  swears  he  saw  Fielden  shoot  once 
from  east  to  west  zuhile  standing  on  the  sidezvalk:  saw 
Fielden  for  the  first  time  that  night;  asked  some  other 
officers  who  the  man  shooting  was,  and  they  said  Fielden. 
(296,  302,  303;   22  and  23.) 

(5.)  Hanley  swears  he  saw  Fielden  fire  one  shot 
and  then  run  with  the  crowd  toward  the  alley.  (Vol.  i, 
307,  308;  23.) 

(6.)  Spierling  (Vol.  L,  341  to  343;  26)  swears 
that  after  the  bomb  exploded  he  saw  Fielden  get  off  the 
zvao-on  and  fire  a  shot.  Fielden  was  standiuQ-  behind  the 
zvagon,  on  the  sidewalk,  and  shot  west. 

There  were  more  Richmonds  in  this  Ha3'market  field, 
in  more  places  and  going  in  more  directions,  than  the  dis- 
ordered fancy  of  Richard  pictured  on  the  field  of  Bos- 
worth. 

This  is  all  the  inculpatory  evidence  against  Fielden. 


Evidence  for  the  dejcnse. 

I. 

fielden's  speech,  threats  and  shooting. 

(i.)  FiELDEN  (A.,  268;  M,  319)  did  not  know  there 
was  to  be  any  Haymarket  meeting  or  that  there  was  to  be 
any  attack  upon  it  by  the  pohce,  or  any  resistance  to  such 
attack,  or  any  bomb  thrown,  or  any  occasion  for  throwing 
it;  he  was  there  by  accident,  and  the  facts,  as  shown 
by  proper  references  to  the  evidence,  are  that  Fielden 
on  the  4th  of  May  was  attending  another  meeting,  held 
on  the  south  side  of  the  city,  at  107  5th  avenue  (M, 
340;  A.,  272),  or  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung  building,  and  went  over  to  the  Haymarket  meet- 
ing after  its  adjournment,  pursuant  to  a  request  for 
speakers. 

Witnesses  who  testify  in  effect  that  Fielden  did  not 
make  threats  are  Patterson  (M,  42  and  44,  A.,  228), 
Snyder  (M,  loi,  A.,  235),  B-own  (M,  120,  123,  A.,  238), 
Waldo  (M,  268,  A.,  245),  Mrs.  Holmes  (M,  279,  280, 
281,   A.,   261),  Parsons  (M,  no.  A.,  313.) 

When  he  arrived  at  the  Haymarket,  Spies  was  speaking, 
but  concluded  in  a  few  minutes;  then  Parsons  spoke,  and 
after  him  Fielden  made  a  short  speech.  When  he  had 
said  "  in  conclusion,"  he  was  interrupted  by  the  appear- 
ance of  the  police.  He  denies  having  made  the  remark 
about  the  bloodhounds  and  the  police. 

(2.)  Freeman,  an  Inter  Ocean  reporter,  eight  or  ten 
feet  from  Fielden,  did  not  hear  the  remark  attributed  to 
Fielden  by  Quinn. 


(3-)  Hull,  a  reporter  for  the  News,  did  not  hear  the 
remark  attributed  by  Quinn  to  Fielden.  (K;  A.,  107.) 
Capt.  Bon  field  and  Capt.  Ward,  who  were  the  officers  in 
command,  and  who  were  ahead  of  their  companies  and 
nearer  Fielden,  did  not  hear  any  threats  of  Fielden. 

The  following  witnesses,  all  of  whom  were  immediately 
about  Fielden,  swear  he  did  not  make  such  a  remark  at 
all  as  sworn  to  by  officer  Quinn  and  others,  to  wit,  "  Here 
"  come  the  blood-hounds  of  police;  men, do  3'our  duty  and  I 
"do  mine,"  or  any  other  similar  remark;  they  must  have 
heard  the  remark  if  made.  These  witnesses  are  (i)  Simon- 
son  (A.,  178;  Vol.  L,  69  ),  (2)  RicHTER  (A.,  187;  V^ol.  L, 
183),  (3)  LiEBEL  (A.,  189;  Vol.  L,  201),  (4)  Taylor  (A., 
190;  Vol.  L,  229),  (5)  GuTscHER  (A.,  198;  Vol.  L,  302), 
(6)  Urban  (A.,  202;  Vol.  L,  350),  (7)  Lindinger  (A., 
215;  Vol.  L,  474),  (8)  Heidekrueger  (A.,  222;  V^ol. 
L,  546),  (9)  Halloway  (A.,  230;  Vol.  M,  61),  (10) 
Snyder  (A.,  237;  Vol.  M,  iii),(ir)  Murphy  (A.,  256; 
Vol.  M.,  243),  (12)  Bach  (A.,  281;  Vol.  M,  406),  (13) 
Ingram  (A.,  288;  Vol.  M,  452),  (14)  Spies  (A.,  303; 
Vol.  N,  55),  (15)  Fielden  (A.,  269;  Vol.  N,  321). 
Here  are  fifteen  unimpeached  witnesses. 

(4.)  English,  the  reporter  for  the  Tribune,  was  in- 
structed by  the  officers  of  that  company  to  take  only  the 
most  sensational  of  the  speeches.  He  took  notes  in  short- 
hand; his  notes  do  not  show  that  Fielden  made  this  re- 
mark. (A.,  134;  K.  287.)  There  were  other  reporters 
for  other  papers,  and  no  other  reporter's  testimony 
contains  any  allusion  to  this  remark.  JVe  say,  therefore, 
he  did  not  make  the  remark. 

Fielden,  if  he  shot,  shot  into  three  men,  to  wit:  Bon- 
field,  Steele  and  Ward,  standing  in  a  group  at  from  four 
to  six  feet  from  him,  must  have  hit  some  one  of  them,  yet 


he  did  not  hit  either  of  them,  and  they  did  not  see  him  fire 
or  feel  his  bullet.  (I,  24;  A.,  2.)  He  was  heard  to  make 
threats  by  people  at  a  distance,  but  eighteen  witnesses  im- 
mediately about  him,  three  of  whom  he  shot  at,  didn't 
hear  him,  and  no  one  taking  shorthand  notes  immediately 
about  him  heard  threats,  their  notes  show  no  threats, 
although  to  get  such  things  was  what  they  were  there  for. 


II. 

FIELDEN    DID    NOT    SHOOT    AT    ALL. 

(i.)  W1LLLA.M  H.  Freeman,  a  witness  for  the  state, 
and  reporter  for  the  Inter  Ocean  (A.,  106,  107;  Vol.  K, 
41,  42,  48,  50),  stood  on  the  sidewalk,  near  the  speaker's 
wagon  and  Crane  Brothers'  building,  within  three  or  four 
feet  of  the  wagon.  When  firing  commenced  he  crouched 
behind  the  wagon;  there  zvas  no  shooting'  bctzueeii  him 
and  the  zuagon.  Police  officers  stood  by  the  wagon  with 
pistols  over  it,  and  one  time  pointing  at  him.  He  didn't 
see  Fielden  shoot  at  all. 

(2.)  Williaii  Snyder  (A.,  236)  was  on  the  wagon 
while  Fielden  was  speaking,  and  when  the  order  to  dis- 
perse was  given.  He  then  stepped  down,  called  to  Fielden 
to  get  down;  helped  Fielden  down.  Bomb  exploded 
while  Fielden  was  getting  down;  Fielden  did  not  shoot;- 
Fielden  had  no  revolver,  did  not  fire  at  police  officers,  or 
any  one  else;  stayed  with  Fielden  with  his  hand  on  him 
until  he  reached  the  mouth  of  the  alley,  where  they  sep- 
arated. 

(3.)  Frank  Stenner:  Stood  at  the  east  side  of 
the  wagon,  close  to  Crane  Bros.'  building;  no  shot  was 
fired  from  the  wagon  before  the  bomb  exploded;   he  tuas 


lO 

looking  at  Fielden  luhen  he  dismounted  from   the   xvagon^ 
but  did  not  see  him  shoot.      (A.,  196.) 

(4.)  Dr.  James  Taylor  (A.,  190)  stood  within  a  few 
feet  of  the  wagon;  saw  Fielden  on  the  wagon;  remained 
in  this  position  until  explosion  of  the  bomb;  he  did  not  see 
Fielden  draw  a  revolver  or  shoot  at  police,  he  watched 
him  as  long  as  he  could  see  him.  (A.,  190;  Vol.  K, 
230,  231.) 

(5.)  Conrad  Messer  (A.,  208)  stood  at  the  north-east 
corner  of  the  wagon;  saw  Fielden  during  all  the  time. 
Fielden  had  no  ■pistol  in  his  hand;  did  not  see  him  fire  at  alL. 

(6.)  John  Holloway  (A.,  229,  230)  stood  near  lamp- 
post south-east  corner  of  alley  and  street;  sazu  no  firing 
coming  firom  the  direction  of  the  zuagon;  did  not  see  Fielden 
shoot. 

(7.)  Sleeper  T.  Ingram  (A.,  287,  288)  stood  on 
sidewalk  near  steps  of  Crane's  building,  just  east  of  wagon, 
saw  Fielden  when  the  police  came  up  and  bomb  exploded, 
did  not  see  Fielden  have  a  revolver  or  fire  a  shot. 

(8.)  Fielden's  TESTIMONY,  Never  Carried  a  revolver, 
did  not  have  one  that  night,  did  not  fire  at  all,  never  fired 
at  any  person,  did  not  fire  from  behind  the  wagon,  did  not 
stay  there  at  all.  (Abst.,  268;  Vol.  M,  319.)  Got 
down  from  the  south  end  of  wagon  after  order  of  disper- 
sion from  Capt.  Ward,  started  south-east-  direction  (A., 
267);  just  as  he  got  to  sidewalk,  explosion  came,  rushed 
with  the  crowd  to  get  some  protection;  made  a  dash  to 
north-east  corner  of  Randolph  and  Desplaines;  turned  the 
corner  and  ran  to  Jefferson.  Fielden  offered  to  swear 
that  at  the  coroner's  inquest,  held  immediately  after  the 
Ilaymarket  meeting,  he  was  present  at  the  examination  of 


II 

the  officers,  who  testified  in  this  trial  that  he  shot  once  or 
more,  and  those  officers  did  not  mention  at  all  tlic  fact  that 
he  shot  in  their  testimony  at  that  examination^  although 
that  examination  zvas  held  the  next  day  after  the  Hay- 
market,  and  zvhen  the  facts  ivere  fresh  in  the  minds  of 
these  witnesses.  The  court  excluded  this  offer,  and 
plaintiff  excepted.      (A.,  277.) 

Therefore,  seven  zvitnesses,  who  were  immediately  about 
Fielden,  and  watching  him,  saw  no  movement  indicating 
shooting,  and  Fielden  swears  he  had  no  revolver  and 
didn't  fire  at  any  one. 

III. 
Albert  R.  Parsons. 

IVie   Criminating  Evidence. 

Mr.  Parsons  was  present  at  the  Haymarket  meeting. 
It  is  claimed  he  there  used  the  expression  as  stated  by 
some  witnesses  for  the  slate:  "  To  arms!  to  arms!  to 
arms!"  *  *  *  (A.,  131;  K,  281.)  "It  behooves 
"  you  as  you  love  your  wife  and  children,  if  you  do  not 
"  want  to  see  them  perish  with  hunger,  killed  or  cut  down 
"  like  dogs  on  the  streets,  Americans,  in  the  interest  of 
'your  liberty  and  your  independence,  to  arm,  to  arm 
"yourselves."  (  Applause  and  cries,  we  will  do  it,  we  are 
ready  now.)  "  Ton  are  notT  -'^  *  *  "  I  am  not  here 
'■'■for  the  purpose  of  inciting  anybody,  but  to  speak  out,  to 
"  tell  you  the  facts  as  they  exist,  even  though  it  shall  cost 
"  me  my  life  before  morning."  This  is  all  the  criminating 
evidence  against  Parsons,  and  he,  too,  is  for  peace  and 
war,  both  at  the  same  time. 

This  is  all  the  evidence  agciinst  Parsons. 


12 


Exculpatory  Facts. 

Parsons  had  just  been  in  Cincinnati  and  returned  to 
Chicago  on  May  4th.  (A.,  313;  Vol.  N,  109.)  He  caused 
a  notice  calling  the  meeting  at  107  5th  avenue,  on  the  south 
side,  on  Monday  morning,  May  4th,  to  be  inserted  in  the 
Daily  News.  He  left  home  in  company  with  his  wife,  Mrs, 
Holmes,  a  lady  friend  and  his  two  little  children.  On  his 
way  to  that  meeting  he  met  Mr.  Owen,  a  witness  for  the 
state,  who  says  (A.,  124;  K,  200,  201):  '•  I  saw 
"  Parsons  at  the  corner  of  Halsted  and  Randolph 
"  streets  shortly  before  8  o'clock;  I  asked  him  where 
"  the  meeting  was  to  be  held;  he  said  he  did  not 
"  know  an3'thing  about  the  meeting;  I  asked  him 
"  whether  he  was  going  to  speak,  he  said  no;  he  was 
"  going  to  the  south  side.  Mrs.  Parsons  and  some  children 
"  came  up  just  then,  and  Parsons  stopped  an  Indiana  street 
"  car,  slapped  me  familiarly  on  the  back,  and  asked  if  I 
"  was  armed,  and  I  said,  no;  have  you  any  dynamite  about 
"  3'ou?  He  laughed,  and  Mrs.  Parsons  said,  '  he  is  a  very 
"  dangerous  looking  man,  isn't  he.^'  And  they  got  on  a 
"  car  and  went  east.  I  believe  Mr.  Heineman  was  with 
"  me."      (A.,  126;  Vol.  K,  233.) 

A  request  for  speakers  at  the  Haymarket  meeting  was 
sent  over  to  the  meeting  on  the  south  side.  That  request 
found  Parsons;  he  went  from  there  to  the  Haymarket 
on  the  west  side  to  speak. 

In  the  course  of  his  speech  at  the  Haymarket  meeting 
which  was  statistical  in  character,  Parsons  spoke  of  Jay 
Gould;  some  one  in  the  audience  cried  out,  "hang  him!" 
Parsons  replied,  in  substance,  ."  no,  this  is  not  a  confiet 
"  hctzveen  individuals,  but  for  a  cJuuigx  of  system,  and 
"  socialism    desires  'to  remove    the    causes    zvhich   produce 


13 

"  the  -pauper  and  the  inil/ioiuiire,  but  does  not  aim 
"  at  the  life  of  the  individual.''^  He  also  said  that  if 
Jay  Gould  were  killed,  another  or  a  hundred  would 
come  up  in  his  place  like  a  jack-in-a-box;  he  also  said 
that,  to  kill  the  individual  millionaire  would  be  like 
killing  the  flea  on  the  dog,  whereas,  the  purpose  of  social- 
ism was  the  destruction  oE  the  dog  himself — a  change 
of  the  present  S3'slem.  (A.,  320;  N,  136.)  These  ex- 
pressions are  also  proven  by  Simonson  (A.,  177;  L,  65), 
Ferguson  (A.,  182;  L,  130,  131),  Gleason  (A.,  203; 
L,  361),  Snyder  (A.,  236;  M,  139),  Bach  (A.,  282; 
M,  410),  Freeman  (A.,  105;  K,  40). 

Parsons  spoke  three-quarters  of  an  hour.  Mr.  English, 
the  Tribune  reporter,  zvas  instructed  by  his  employers 
to  take  only  the  most  infamniatary  utterances^  and  con- 
sequently was  on  the  watch  for  such.  His  account  of 
Parsons'  speech  occupies  but  a  single  page  of  this  record. 
Parson's  gives  an  account  of  this  speech  (A.,  315-320; 
Vol.  N,   118  to  136). 

Mayor  Harrison,  who  heard  Parsons'  speech  and  at- 
tended the  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  dispersing  it,  if 
anything  should  occur  to  require  interference,  left  the 
meeting  at  the  end  of  that  speech  and  told  Captain  Bon- 
field,  at  the  station,  that  -'nothing  had  occurred  3^et,  or 
"  looked  likely  to  occur  to  require  interference,  and  that 
"  he  had  better  issue  orders  to  his  reserves  at  other  sta- 
"  tions  to  go  home,  whereupon  Harrison  himself  went 
"home."      (A.,  174  and   175;  L,   29,  31,  47.) 

After  Parsons,  Fielden  spoke  twent}^  minutes.  After 
Mr.  Fielden  had  been  speaking  some  ten  minutes,  it  is  ad- 
mitted by  all  the  witnesses,  that  a  cloud,  accompanied  by 
a  cold  wind,  swept  over  the  northern  sky,  and  thereupon 
Parsons  interrupted  Fielden,  suggesting   an    adjournment 


14 

of  the  meeting  to  Zepf's  Hall,  in  a  building  situated  at 
the  north-east  corner  of  Lake  and  Desplaines,  and  half  a 
block  from  the  Haymarket  meeting.  To  this  somebody 
in  the  audience  replied  that  the  hall  was  occupied  by  a 
meeting  of  furniture-workers,  and  thereupon  Fielden  sug- 
gested that  he  zuonld  be  throiigh  in  a  few  moments,  and 
then  they  zvoiild  all  go  home.  (A.,  314;  N,  113.)  This 
fact  is  established  by  witnesses  for  the  defense  and  prose- 
cution, among  others  as  follows:  Freeman  (x\.,  108; 
K,  51,  52),  Heineman  (A.,  127;  K,  246),  English  (A., 
132,  133;  K,  282),  Simonson  (A.,  178;  L,  66,  67), 
Richter  (A.,  187;  L,  184),  Urban  (A.,  201;  L,  343), 
Ingram    (A.,  287,   M.  447). 

About  one-half  the  audience  dispersed  upon  Parsons' 
motion  and  Fielden's  suggestion.  Parsons  got  down  from 
the  wagon  and  went  a  few  feet  north,  where  his  wife  and 
Mrs.  Holmes  were,  and  they  went  together  to  Zepf's  Hall. 

At  the  time  of  the  explosion  of  the  bomb  after  the 
Haymarket  meeting,  Parsons,  together  with  his  wife  and 
Mrs.  Holmes,  was  in  Zepf's  saloon. 

This  is  substantiated  by  the  following  witnesses: 
Michael  Malkoff  (A.,  224),  Thomas  Brown  (A.,  238; 
M,  125),  Wandray  (A.,  248;  M,  192), Lizzie  M.Holmes 
(A.,  261;  M,  284,  285),  Ingram  (x\.,  287;  Vol.  M,  448), 
Parsons'  testimony  (A.,  314,  315;  N,  114,  116).  No 
effort  was  made  bv  the  prosecution  to  refute  this  testi- 
mony. 

The  ma3-or  of  the  city,  in  whose  hands,  by  the  laws  of 
the  state  and  of  the  city,  the  peace  of  the  city  is  reposed, 
stood  in  the  crowd  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  whether  the 
meeting  should  be  interfered  with,  and  must  have  heard 
him  say:  '■'•  /  am  not  here  for  the  -purpose  of  inciting  any 
"  one.     This    is    not    '  a    conjiicl   betzveen    individuals  ' — it 


15 

"  does  not  aim  at  the  life  of  the  individual T  He  then 
went  to  Capt.  Bonfield  of  the  poHce  and  told  him  he  had 
better  order  his  reserves  home,  and  went  home  himself, 
and  yet  this  man,  on  this,  as  the  only  legitimate  evidence, 
has  been  found  guilty  of  murder,  and  sentenced  to  be 
hung. 

IV. 

Michael   Schw^ab. 

Criminative  Evidence. 

M.  M.  Thompson  (A.,  134,    137)    swore   that   on   the 

evening  of.  May  4th,  at  the  Haymarket,  after  eight 

o'clock,    he    saw    Spies    and    Schwab    walk    from 

the  wagon   used    as    a   speaker's    stand    into    the 

ALLEY    SOUTH    OF  Crane    Bros.  (K,    288);    there   was 

a    crowd   there.      Thompson    stood    three  feet  north    of 

the     alley,    up    against    the    building    (K,     291,     292); 

from    this    position    he    heard     a    conversation     between 

Schzuab  and  Spies  in  the  alley;  admits  he  had   never  seen 

either  before,  never  heard  either  speak,  except   he   heard 

Spies  from  the  wagon  inquire  for  Parsons.     He  heard  in 

a  conversation  between  them  the   word  ''pistols  "  and  the 

word  ''police''  twice,  the  last  remark  about  a  minute  and  a 

half  after  Spies  and  Schwab  went  into  the  alley  and   out 

of  si^ht  (K,  295) ;  he  drew  up  within  a  foot   of  the  alley 

when  Spies  said,   "  do   you  think   one  is  enough,  or  don't 

"  you  think  we  had  better  go  and  get  more?"      (K,  294.) 

Heard  nothing   more.      Spies    and   Schwab   came   out   of 

the  alley,  walked  on  Desplaines  to  Randolph,  west  on  the 

north  side  of  Randolph  to   Halsted,  crossed    Halsted   di- 

atmnally  to  the  south-west  corner  of  the  street,  remained 


i6 

there  about  three  minutes.  On  their  way  back  as  they 
neared  Union  he  heard  the  word  '•'■■police^''  again,  and 
at  that  moment  he  passed  them,  Schwab  saying,  "  Now, 
"  if  they  come,  we  will  give  it  to  them."  Spies  replied 
"they  were  afraid  to  bother  with  them."  On  the  north- 
west corner  of  Desplaines  and  Randolph  he  halted  and 
they  passed  him,  going  diagonally  across  Desplaines  in  a 
north-easterly  direction  and  reaching  the  sidewalk  about 
twent}^  feet  south  of  the  alley;  he  followed  them  across 
Desplaines  street,  but  went  a  little  more  south,  reaching 
the  sidewalk  ten  or  fifteen  feet  south  of  them,  when  a 
third  part)'  stepped  from  the  wall  of  the  building  towards 
the  center  of  the  sidewalk  and  the  group  there  stood 
Spies  facing  south  and  directly  facing  Thompson,  Schwab 
was  facing  north  and  the  third  man  facing  west.  Some- 
thing passed  between  Spies  and  the  third  man,  which  he 
could  not  see.  The  third  man  took  it  and  put  it  in  his 
right-hand  coat  pocket,  the}^  then  went  to  the  wagon; 
Spies  got  up  and  the  third  man  after  him.  Witness  was 
shown  a  photograph  of  Schnaubelt  and  said  he  thought 
the  third  man  was  he.      (K,    2S9,  290.) 

Thompson  adniilted  that  he  did  not  nndcrstcDid  Genncni., 
and  said  tJiat  all  these  conversations  zvere  carried  on  in 
English,  although  the  men  xvere  Germans. 

Excnlpa tor y  Evidence. 

(i.)  Schwab  says  (A.  294,296)  that  on  the  evening  of 
the  4th  of  Ma}^  he  left  his  home,  51  Florimond  sti-eet,  at 
tzventv  minutes  to  8  and  zvent  to  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office, 
reaching  there  about  8;  while  there  a  telephone  message 
was  received  asking  Spies  to  speak  at  Deering's  factory, 
and  Schwab's  purpose  in  going  to  Ha3'market  was  to  get 
Spies  to  respond  to  this  call;  he  went  to  the  Haymarket, 


17 

looked  for  Spies  but  failed  to  find  him  and  took   a  car  for 
Deering's  factory  himself.     He  went  over  on  Washington 
street,  turned  north   on  Desplaines   across  Randolph,  and 
north    of  Randolph    on    Desplaines,  met   Schnaubelt  and 
talked  with  him   about  the  Deering  meeting,  took  an  east 
bound  car  to  the  court   house,  and  at  the    court  house  a 
Clybourn  avenue  car   for    Deering's  factory.      At  the  car 
stables  he  was  met   by  Preusser.      The  time  required  to 
go  Jroni    the    Ilayniarkct    to    the    court    house    zuas    ten 
minutes.      The   time  required  to  go  from  the  court  house 
to    the    Haymarket^   the    same    distance.,    xuould    also    he 
ten    minutes.     Fixing    8    o'clock    as    the    time     Fielding 
arrived  at   the    Arbeiter    Zeitung   office,  near    the    court 
house,    he    could    not     have     reached     the     Haymarket 
until  ten  minutes  past  8.     The  time  required  to  go  from 
the  court    house    to   Fullerton   avenue,  is  forty-five   min- 
utes,  and  from   the   Haymarket   to  the  court  house,  ten 
minutes;  he  went  with  Preusser  to  888  Clybourn  avenue 
to  see  a  committee,  but  not   finding   them,  went  on  to  the 
prairie  at  the  corner  of  Fullerton   and    Clybourn    avenues 
where  he  met  the  committee,  talked  with  them  a  few  min- 
utes, mounted  the    stand   and   spoke    twenty-five  minutes. 
After  the  meeting  was  over  he  returned  with  Preusser  to 
a  saloon,  took  some  beer  and  lunch  and  then  a  car  for  the 
south  side,  leaving  that  car  at  Willow  street  and  walked 
home.     This  occupied  twenty   minutes,  and  he  reached 
home  at  1 1  o'clock.       While  at  the  Haymarket,  he  did  not 
enter  Crane's  alley  with  Spies;  had  no    conversation  zvith 
him  near  the  mouth  of  any  alley;  did  not  zualk   that  night 
zvith  Spies  on  Randolph  street   zuest    to   Halsted  and  hack 
to  the  zvagon;  did  not  see  Spies   meet  Schnauhclt ;  did  not 
see  or  speak  to  Spies  at  all  that  night  at  Haymarket;  did 
not  say  any  thing  to  him  about  pistols  or  police,  or  zvhether 


i8 

one  zuoidd  he  enoiig'h,  had  no  such  cojivcrsation  ivith  any- 
body at  Hayniarkef ;  did  not  say  to  Spies  or  any  one  else 
zve  zvcre  ready  for  them,  or  would  g'it'c  it  to  them.  He 
met  Heineman  and  asked  for  Spies,  he  took  the  car  about 
half-past  8  on  /Randolph  street  for  the  court  house,  and 
the  Cl3'bourn  avenue  car  about  tvvent}^  minutes  to  9. 
The  character  of  his  errand  at  the  Ha3'market  makes  the 
spending  of  ten  minutes  there  sufficient  for  such  errand. 
He  didn't  go  there  to  attend  the  meeting  or  to  speak,  but 
simply  to  find  Spies.  It  was  before  the  meeting  began, 
and  there  were  few  people.  He  movtifd  about  the  crowd  a 
few  minutes,  and  not  finding  him,  hastened  to  the  meet- 
ing himself,  which  was  over  an  hour's  ride  away.  Schwab 
must  have  arrived  at  the  meeting  about  twenty  minutes  past 
8,  and  must  have  left  about  half-past  8.  That  Schwab  was 
at  107  5th  avenue,  or  Arbiter  Zeitung  office,  and  received  a 
telephone  call  for  Spies  first  and  went  to  Deering  factory 
himself  is  testified  to  by  Patterson  (A..  228;  M,  42); 
Waldow  (x\.  245;  M,  168);  Bach  (A.  279;  M,  398,399); 
and  Fielden  (A.,  265,  M,  307);  that  a  telephone  message 
was  sent  from  Deering  to  Arbeiter  Zeitun"-  is  testified  to 
by  Preusser  (A.,  248,  249,  M,  197,  200). 

That  Schwab  was  seen  at  the  corner  of  Randolph  and 
Desplaines  street,  as  sworn   to  by   him,  is  testified   to   by 

(  2)  Heineman,  a  Tribune  reporter  and  witness  for  the 
prosecution  (A.,  126;  K,  232); 

(3)  Owen,  a  reporter  for  the  Times  (A.,  124;  K,  202), 

(4)  Herman  Becker  (x\.,  250)  szvcars,  about  8 
o^lock  Schzvah  came  south  o)i  Desplaines  street  and 
took  an  cast  bonnet  car  on.  Ranpolph :  that  he  icas  at 
Dcerino-  factory  and  spoke  there,  is  testified  to  by  Edward 
Preusser  (A.,  249,  M,  200) ;  Fritz  Stettler  (A.,  250) ;  Will- 


iam  Radtke  (A.,  221);  Dietrich  Behrens  (A.,  222);  he 
remained  at  Deering  three-quarters  oE  an  hour  to  an 
hour,  having  reached  there  half-past  9  to  twenty  minutes 
to  10,  he  did  not  leave  Deering  until  half-past  10,  and  that 
the  time  zvhich  ivoiiJd  be  requfred  to  gv  to  the  Hayniar- 
ket  zuas  an  hour  after  leaving  Deering. 

(5)  August  Spies:   He  arrived  at  the  Hay  market  about 
twenty-five  minutes  after  8  with  his  brother  Henry.      No 
meeting    was   in   progress;    he  selected   a    wagon    as    a 
speaker's    stand,  mounted    the   wagon,  called   the    crowd 
together  and   inquired  for  Parsons.      (A.,    299;  N,  33.) 
Some  one  in  the  crowd  replied  that  Parsons    was   speak- 
ing at  the  corner  of  Halsted  and  Randolph;  he  got  down 
from  the   wagon;  went   with    his   brother    Henry,  Ernest 
Legner    and   Rudolph   Schnaubelt,   and    started    to   find 
Parsons.      Schwab   was   not    with   him,  and   Schnaubc^lt 
told  him  that  he  had  gone  to    Deering.     He   did    not  go 
to  Crane's  alley;  did  not  converse  there  with  Schzvab  or 
any  one    else  about  pistols   or  police;    he   went  from    the 
wagon    south-westerly   and   obliquely   across    Desplaines 
street  to  the  corner  of  Haymarket,  and  from  there   west 
on  Randolph  a  little  beyond  Union;    not   seeing   Parsons 
he    returned    to  the    wagon;    had    no    conversation    ivith 
Schzuab  at  the  corner  of   Union,  or  any  one  else,  in  zuhich 
there  zuas  a  suggestion  of  being  ready  for  them,  or  giving 
it  to  them,  or  anything  of  that  kind.      He   did  not   meet 
Schnaubelt  on  the  sidewalk  south   of   the  alley   on   Des- 
plaines street,  but  Schnaubelt  was   with   him   in    walking 
from  the  wagon  to  Randolph,  west  on  Randolph  and  back 
to  the  wagon. 

(6)  Henry  W.  Spies  (i\.,  240,  241)  corroborates  his 
brother  fully.  After  inquiring  for  Parsons  from  the 
wagon,    his    brother     then   got   down    from    the   wagon. 


20 

walked  south-westerly  toward  the  north-west  corner  of 
Desplaines  and  Randolph,  ami  did  not  go  hi  the  direction 
of  Crane  Bros.''  alley. 

(7)  William  Saul  (A.,  205) :  Stood  south-westerly 
from  the  wagon.  Saw  tlenr}-  Spies  and  his  brother  as 
they  passed  him;  knows  Schwab — did  not  see  him  with 
Spies  on  the  wagon  or  afterwards;  he  was  not  in  group 
oj-  men  zvho  accompanied  Spies. 

(S)  Carl  Richter  (A.,  186,  187):  Had  been  ac- 
quainted with  Spies  more  than  a  year  previous  to  the  Hay- 
market  meeting;  he  stood  at  that  meeting  at  the  mouth  of 
Crane'' s  alley.  Spies  was  at  that  meeting;  called  for  Par- 
sons; left  the  wagon;  he  did  not  see  Jim  enter  the  alley 
although  there  zuas  nothing  to  prevent  him  from  seeing  him 
if  he  had  gone  there;  he  was  there  with  Robert  Lind- 
inger  and  remained  with  him  for  the  evenincf. 

(9)  Robert  Lindinger  (A.,  215):  Was  with  Richter 
at  the  mouth  of  Cranc''s  alley,  midway  between  the  two 
sidewalks,  and  did  not  see  Spies  or  anybody  else  -pass  into 
the  alley.  Never  saw  Schwab  before  he  testified;  saw 
Spies  leave  the  wagon  after  asking  for  Parsons,  and  re- 
turn to  it  after  five  or  ten  minutes,  and  then  open  the 
meeting. 

(10)  Frederick  Liebel  (A.,  188):  Was  by  the  lamp- 
post, at  the  corner  of  the  alley,  when  Spies  inquired  for 
Parsons;  he  then  left  the  wagon;  knew  Schwab  by  sight, 
did  not  see  him,  on  or  near  the  wagon,  when  Spies  made 
his  inquiry;  did  not  see  him  that  night,  did  not  see  Spies 
go  to  alley.  The  lamp  was  lighted  and  was  light  enough 
to  notice  faces. 

(11.)      Officer    Cosgrove    for  the  prosecution    (A., 


21 

I20,  121 ;  K,  167)  testilied:  "When  Spies  got  on  the 
"  wagon  first,  he  called  out  twice  whether  Parsons  was 
"  there,  and  told  some  one  in  the  crowd  to  go  and  find 
"  Parsons.  He  said  Fielden  would  be  here  later.  He  got 
"  dozvn  and  zvent  in  a  sothzvestcrly  direction;  he  came 
"  back  in  a  short  time  and  commenced  speaking." 

(12,)  Officer  McKeough,  also  for  the  prosecution, 
(A.,  122;  K,  176):  "Spies  got  on  the  wagon  and  called 
"  out  twice  is  Parsons  here;  he  received  no  answer  and 
"  said  never  mind,  I  will  go  and  find  him  mvself.  Some- 
"  body  said,  let  us  pull  the  wagon  round  on  Randolph 
"  street  and  hold  the  meeting  there.  Spies  said,  we  may 
"  stop  the  street  cars;  he  stai'ted  away  then  and  Officer 
"  Myers  and  myself  foUoxved  him  as  far  as  the  corner 
"  (corner  of  Randolph  and  Desplaines  streets)." 

If  Officers  Myers  and  McKeough  followed  Spies,  did 
they  not  know  where  he  went,  and  that  he  did  not  go 
into  the  alley  with  Schwab?  And  yet  when  these  officers 
were  following  Spies  was  the  only  time  he  left  the  wagon. 
Therefore  we  have  two  witnesses  for  the  prosecution  who 
follotved  Spies  and  know  most  positivel}^,  and  testify  in 
effect,  he  did  not  go  into  the  alley  with  Schwab. 

(13.)  Mr.  English,  the  Tribune  reporter,  (i.\.,  129; 
K,  274):  He  was  present  when  Spies  got  on  the  wagon 
and  that  he  efot  off'  the  waggon  and  went  over  toward 
Randolph  street.  "  As  he  passed  me  in  coming  back,  I 
"  asked  him  if  Parsons  was  going  to  speak." 

(14.)  Brazelton,  reporter  of  the  Inter  Ocean,  was 
named  by  Thompson  as  the  man  who  pointed  out  Schwab. 
Brazelton's  name  was  endorsed  on  the  back  of  the  indict- 
ment, yet  Brazelton  was  not  produced  as  a  witness,  even 
when  the  state  was  notified  to  produce  him. 


22 

The  testimony  also  shows  without  contradiction,  that 
Spies  and  Schwab  zuere  both  Germans.  It  zuas  offered 
by  the  defendants  to  frove  they  luere  in  the  habit  of 
carrying  on  their  -personal  conversations  in  their  native 
tongae,  zvhich  offer  zuas  rejected  by  the  Judge,  and  to  his 
riding  an  exception  zuas  preserved.  (N,  56;  A.,  303.) 
Could  anything  be  practically  more  pertinent  or  impor- 
tant than  this  testimony  thus  offered,  and  refused  by  the 
court?  Suppose  one  of  3'our  Honors  and  myself,  both 
intensely  American,  were  in  Paris  to-night,  and  were  con- 
spiring to  attack  the  police,  and  were  talking  together. 
We  would  say,  "  Let's  give  the  police  fits  to-night." 
Imagine  us  Americans  conspiring  in  French  and  saying, 
"  AUons  attrapfer  les  gendarmes.'''' 

The  only  motive  in  making  the  threats  in  French 
would  be  to  have  those  threats  known,  and  if  we  did 
anything  to  have  ourselves  caught  and  punished. 

So  long-  as  the  ri^^^hteous  and  not  the  wicked  are  as 
bold  as  a  lion,  so  long  as  crime  in  its  tendencies  gravitates 
towards  secrecy  and  concealment,  so  long  this  story  of 
conspiracy  in  a  foreign  city  and  a  foreign  language,  when 
one's  own  language  would  conceal  the  very  conspiracy, 
so  long,  I  say,  this  story  will  be  false. 

Again:  It  is  said  these  defendants  were  foreigners. 
Tiiey  were  scarcely  naturalized,  if  at  all.  Any  two  men 
raised  until  maturit}^  in  Germany,  and  speaking  that 
language  as  their  native  language,  the  very  excitement  of 
the  occasion  would  have  thrown  their  language  into  the 
German.  Our  instincts  and  habits  of  life  arise  in  excite- 
ment. This  is  true  of  animals  and  of  men.  The  eagle 
or  hawk,  when  suddenly  come  upon,  flies,  because  it  is 
his  nature  to  fl}';  the  fox  runs  for  his  hole  for  the  same 
reason.     It  was  by  this  law  that  the  lone  fisherman,  on  the 


23 

banks  of  a  stream,  discriminated,  without  a  single  mis- 
take, between  eels  and  snakes.  Laying  his  catch  down 
on  the  banks,  those  that  wriggled  for  the  river  he  put  in 
his  basket  for  eels,  and  those  that  wriggled  for  the  stone- 
heaps  he  killed  for  snakes. 


V. 

August  Spies. 

Inculpating  Evidence. 

We  should  herein  call  attention: 

(i.)  To  the  evidence  of  Thompson  before  given  in 
the  inculpatory  evidence  against  Schwab,  so  far  as  it 
affects  Spies. 

(2.)  His  speech  at  the  Haymarket  meeting.  The  pros- 
ecution introduced  Mr.  English,  who  read  from  his  short- 
hand notes  the  following  as  Spies'  speech  (A.  129;  K, 
276): 

"Gentlemen  and  fellow- workmen:  Mr.  Parsons  and 
"  Mr.  Fielden  will  be  here  in  a  very  short  time  to  address 
"  you.  I  will  say,  however,  first,  this  meeting  was  called 
"  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  general  situation  of  the 
"  eight-hour  strike,  and  the  events  which  have  taken 
"  place  during  the  last  forty-eight  hours.  It  seems  to 
"  have  been  the  opinion  of  the  authorities  that  this  meet- 
"  ing  has  been  called  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  little 
"  row  and  disturbance.  This,  hozucver,  zvas  not  the  inten- 
"  Hon  of  the  committee  that  called  the  meeting.  The 
"  committee  that  called  the  meeting  wanted  to  tell  you 
"  certain  facts  of  which  you  are  probably  aware.  The 
"  capitalistic  press  has  been   misleading,   misrepresenting 


24 

"  the  cause  of  labor  for  the  last  few  weeks,  so  much  so"; 
"there  is  something  here  unintelligible  that  I  cannot 
"  read.  Some  of  it  went  off  on  the  side  of  my  pocket. 
"The  next  is:  "Whenever  strikes  have  taken  place; 
"  whenever  people  have  been  driven  to  violence  by  the 
"  oppression  of  their  " — something  unintelligible — "  Then 
"  the  police  " — a  few  unintelligible  words,  then  there  were 
"cheers — "But  I  want  to  tell  you,  gentlemen,  that  these 
"  acts  of  violence  are  the  natural  outcome  of  the  degra- 
"  dation  and  subjection  to  which  working  people  are  sub- 
"jected.  I  was  addressing  a  meeting  of  ten  thousand 
"  wage  slaves,  yesterda}^  afternoon,  in  the  neighborhood 
"  of  McCormick's.  They  did  not  want  me  to  speak. 
"The  most  of  them  were  good,  church-going  people. 
"They  didn't  want  me  to  speak  because  I  was  a  socialist. 
"  They  wanted  to  tear  me  down  from  the  cars,  but  1 
"  spoke  to  them  and  told  them  that  they  must  stick  to- 
"  gether," — some  more  that  is  unintelligible — "  and  he 
"  would  have  to  submit  to  them  if  they  would  stick  to- 
"  gether."  The  next  I  have  is,  "  They  were  not  anar- 
"  chists,  but  good,  church-going  people;  they  were  good 
"  Christians.  The  patrol  wagons  came  and  blood  was 
"  shed."  Some  one  in  the  crowd  said,  "Shame  on  them!" 
The  next  thing  I  have  is,  "  Throwing  stones  at  the  facto- 
"ry;  most  harmless  sport."  Then  Spies  said,  "  What 
"did  the  police  do?"  Some  one  in  the  crowd  said, 
"  Murdered  them."  Then  he  went  on,  "  They  only  came 
"  to  the  meeting  there  as  if  attending  church."  *  *  "''' 
"  Such  things  tell  you  of  the  agitation."  *  '^         * 

"  Couldn't  help  themselves  any  more.  It  was  then  when 
"  they  resorted  to  violence."  ='■'  '■''•  *  "  Before  you 
"  starve."  '■^-  *  *  "  This  fight  that  is  going  on  now 
"  is  simply  a  struggle  for  the  existence   of  the   oppressed 


25 

"classes."  My  pocket  got  fuller  and  fuller  of  paper,  my 
notes  got  more  unintelligible,  the  meeting  seemed  to  be 
orderly;  I  took  another  position  in  the  face  of  the 
speaker,  took  out  my  paper  and  reported  openly  during 
all  the  rest  of  the  meeting.  So  far  as  it  goes  it  is  ver- 
batim, except  the  pronouns  and  the  verbs  are  changed. 

The  balance  of  Spies'  speech  is  as  follows  (reading) : 
"  It  was  said  that  I  inspired  the  attack  on  McCormick's. 
"  That  is  a  lie.  The  fight  is  going  on.  Now  is  the 
"  chance  to  strike  for  the  existence  of  the  oppressed 
"  classes.  The  oppressors  want  us  to  be  content.  They 
"  will  kill  us.  The  thought  of  liberty  which  inspired 
"your  sires  to  fight  for  their  freedom  ought  to  animate 
"you  to-day.  The  day  is  not  far  distant  when  we  will 
"resort  to  hanging  these  men."  (Applause,  and  cries  of 
"  Hang  them  now.")  "  McCormick  is  the  man  who 
"created  the  row  Monday,  and  he  must  be  held  respon- 
"  sible  for  the  murder  of  our  brothers."  (Cries  of  "  Hang 
"  him.")  "  DoiiH  make  any  threats — they  are  of  no 
"  avail.  Whenever  yon  gxt  ready  to  do  somethlno-^  do  it, 
'■'•  and  douH  make  any  threats  beforehand.  There  are  in 
"  the  city  to-day  between  forty  and  fifty  thousand  men 
"  locked  out  because  they  refuse  to  obey  the  supreme  will 
"  or  dictation  of  a  small  number  of  men.  The  families  of 
"  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  men  are  starving  because 
"  their  husbands  and  fathers  are  not  men  enough  to  with- 
"  stand  and  resist  the  dictation  of  a  few  thieves  on  a  g'-and 
"  scale,  to  put  out  of  the  power  of  a  few  men  to  say 
"  whether  they  should  work  or  not.  You  place  your  lives, 
"  your  happiness — everything,  under  the  arbitrary  power 
"  of  a  few  rascals  who  have  been  raised  in  idleness  and 
"  luxury  upon  the  fruits  of  your  labor.  Will  you  stand 
*'that?"      (Cries    of    "No.")      "The    press   say    we  are 


26 

"  Bohemians,  Poles,  Russians,  Germans — that  there  are 
"no  Americans  among  us.  That  is  a  lie;  every  honest 
"  American  is  with  us.  Those  who  are  not  are  unwor- 
"  thy  of  their  traditions  and  their  forefathers." 

Spies  spoke  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes.  What  I  have 
given  here  would  not  represent  more  than  five  or  six 
minutes  of  actual  talking-. 

Spies  also  under  circumstances  hereafter  stated,  wrote 
the  revenge  circular,  which  was  as  follows: 

This  circular  was  found  in' Spies'  handwriting,  in  the 
Arbeiter  Zeitung  office,  by  the  officers  of  the  prosecution  in 
their  search  of  the  premises,  next  day  after  tiie  Haymarket 
meeting.  It  was  preserved  and  on  the  trial  introduced 
in  evidence.  We  therefore  claim  that  this  was  unlazufal 
evidence.     Its  unlawful  feature  will  be  discussed  hereafter. 

(4.)     Revenge  circular. 

(i  A.,  141.)  "Workingmen!  To  arms!  Your  mas- 
"  ters  sent  out  their  blood-hounds  —  the  police  —  they 
"  killed  six  of  your  brothers  at  McCormick's  this  after- 
"  noon.  They  killed  the  poor  wretches,  because  they, 
"  like  you,  had  courage  to  disobey  the  supreme  will  of 
"your  bosses.  They  killed  them  because  they  dared  ask 
"  for  the  shortening  of  the  hours  of  toil.  They  killed 
"them  to  show  you  '  free  American  citizens  '  that  you 
"must  be  satisfied  and  contented  with  whatever  your 
"•  bosses  condescend  to  allow  you,  or  you  will  get  killed! 

"  You  have  for  years  endured  the  most  abject  humili- 
"ations;  you  have  for  years  suffered  immeasurable 
"iniquities;  you  have  worked  yourselves  to  death;  you 
"have  endured  the  pangs  of  want  and  hunger;  your 
"children  3'ou  have  sacrificed  to  the  factory  lords — in 
"  short,  you  have   been    miserable  and  obedient  slaves  all 


■    27 

"these  years.  Why?  To  satisfy  the  insatiable  greed 
"and  fill  the  coffers  of  yoiir  lazy,  thieving  master!  When 
"  you  ask  him  now  to  lessen  your  burden,  he  sends  his 
"  blood-hounds  out  to  shoot  you,  kill  you! 

"  If  you  are  men,  if  you  are  the  sons  of  your  grand- 
"  sires,  who  have  shed  their  blood  to  free  you,  then  you 
"  will  rise  in  your  might,  Hercules,  and  destroy  the  hideous 
"  monster  that  seeks  to  destroy  you. 

"To  arms,  we  call  you,  to  arms! 

"  Your  Brothers." 

(5.)        RUHE. 

This  evidence  was  also  found  by  the  officers  in  their 
unreasonable  search,  and  is  therefore  claimed  as  tinlazvf'ul 
evidence. 

The  point  of  the  unlawfulness  of  this  evidence,  and  of 
the  revenge  circular,  as  hereafter  discussed,  is  that  the 
manner  of  obtaining  it  was  contrary  to  the  constitution, 
and  using  it  as  evidence  against  this  defendant,  and  against 
all  of  the  defendants,  was  forcing  them  to  give  evidence 
against  themselves,  which  is  also  contrary  to  the  consti- 
tution. 

At  54  West  Lake  street,  on  Monday  night,  it  was 
resolved  that  in  certain  contingencies,  the  word"Ruhe" 
should  be  published  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  under  the 
heading  "  Briefkasten "  (Letter-box),  as  a  signal  for 
certain  action  b}^  the  members  there  present.  This  we 
shall  consider  more  particularly  in  the  review  of  the  case 
made  against  Adolph  Fischer.  It  was  shown  also  that 
in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  of  May  4th  the  word  "  Ruhe  " 
actually  did  appear  under  the  heading  "  Briefkasten." 
"  Ruhe  "  is  a  German  word,  meaning  quiet,  rest.  (A.,  4; 
J,  59.)  Mr.  Spies  wrote  the  word  "Ruhe"  for  inser- 
tion in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  on  May  4th. 


28 

(3-)     Gilmer's  testimony. 

(A.,  141-147;  K,  362-412).  He  went  to  the  Hay- 
market  meeting,  reaching  there  about  a  quarter  to  10 
o'clock,  on  his  way  home  from  the  Palmer  Hotise,  where 
he  says  he  tveiit  expecting  to  meet  Governor  Merrill  and 
Judge  Cole,  of  lozva.  He  stood  near  the  lamp-post  on 
the  corner  of  Crane  Bros.'  alley,  between  the  lamp-post 
and  the  wagon  and  up  near  the  east  side  of  the  wagon 
for  a  few  minutes;  Fielden  was  speaking  when  he  came 
to  the  meeting;  he  stood  there  for  a  few  minutes  looking 
for  a  party  whom  he  expected  to  find  there,  and  then 
stepped  back  in  the  alley  between  Crane  Bros.'  building 
and  the  building  immediately  south  of  it;  standing  in  the 
alley  and  looking  around,  he  noticed  parties  in  conversa- 
tion directly  across  the  alley,  on  the  south  side  thereof; 
some  one  on  the  edge  of  the  sidewalk  said:  "  Here 
comes  the  police!"  and  there  was  a  sort  of  a  rush  to  see 
the  police  come  up;  a  man  thereupon  came  from  the  tuagon 
down  to  the  parties  on  the  south  side  of  the  alley,  lit  a  match 
and  touched  of  something,  a  fuse  zuhich  commenced  to  fizzle, 
a7id  the  party  who  held  it  took  two  steps  forward  and  tossed 
it  into  the  street;  he  knew  by  sight  the  man  who  threw 
"  the  fizzino-  thino;  into  the  street,"  but  did  not  know  his 
name;  he  was  a  man  about  five  feet  ten  inches  high, 
somewhat  full-chested,  with  a  light  sandy  beard,  full 
faced,  with  an  eye  set  somewhat  back  in  the  head,  and 
probably  weighing  180  pounds;  he  had  on  a  brown  or 
black  hat;  the  photograph  of  Schnaubelt,  presented  to 
the  witness,  is  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb  out  of  the 
alley;  Spies  zuas  the  man  who  camejrom  the  wagon  tozuard 
the  group;  and  Fischer  zuas  one  of  the  group;  after  the 
bomb  was  thrown  these  parties  immediately  left  through 
the  alley;    witness  stood  still  until  the  firing  ceased. 


29 

Upon  cross-examination  of  Mr.  Gilmer  he  said  that  he 
made  no  outcry  at  that  time,  he  saw  the  fuse  Hghted  and 
the  bomb  thrown  and  did  not  for  some  time  afterwards 
communicate  to  any  person  whatever  what  he  had  seen 
and  heard  upon  thut  night,  although  he  had  different 
conversations  about  the  meeting  in  which  he  had  stated 
that  he  had  been  there.  On  the  afternoon  of  the 
next  day  at  the  city  hall  he  did  state  to  a  Times 
reporter  and  another  man,  that  he  believed  he  could 
identify  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb  if  he  ever  saw  him 
again,  but  did  not  at  that  time  detail  the  occiirrencey 
as  stated  in  his  testimony ;  from  the  position  which  he 
occupied  in  the  alley,  he  could  not  see  the  wagon,  and 
therefore  did  not  see  Spies  when  he  came  from  the  zuagon^ 
but  that  he  came  from  the  direction  of  the  wagon, 
and  that  he  had  seen  Spits  before  standing  on  the 
sidewalk  and  talking  with  somebody;  he  was  inclined 
to  think  it  was  Schwab;  he  did  not  run  at  the  time  of  the 
shooting,  but  stood  perfectly  still,  there  were  no  bullets 
coming  in  around  his  locality  in  the  alley;  and  after  it 
was  all  over,  he  backed  out  of  the  alley,  took  a  car  and 
went  home;  there  was  much  excitement  and  talkin"g  about 
the  meeting  upon  the  car  and  elsewhere,  but  he  com- 
vinnicated  to  nobody  zvhat  he  had  seen  or  heard;  his 
interview  as  to  these  occurrences  had  been  mostly  with 
detective  James  Bonfield,  but  he  zvotdd  not  be  positive  that 
he  had  ever  told  Mr.  Bonfield  that  he  saiv  the  man  lig-Ju 
the  match  {}^,  29'^) '■>  he  had  seen  Spies  and  knew  him 
by  sight  for  a  year  and  a  half,  but  not  by  name, 
had  frequently  seen  and  heard  him  speak  at  public 
meetings,  but  never  inquired  what  his  name  was, 
thouo'h  he  had  heard  him  once  at  a  meetintr  on  Market 
street,  a  year    ago   last   spring,  and    had    seen    from    the 


30 

paper  afterwards  that  Spies  had  been  one  of  the  speakers 
•at  that  meeting.  Witness  was  in  the  city  at  the  tiine  of 
the  proceedings  before  the  different  coroner's  juries,  who 
investigated  the  cause  of  the  death  of  the  officers  killed 
at  the  Hay  market;  that  the  officers  then  knew  his  name 
and  address,  but  that  they  never  called  upon  him  to  go 
either  before  the  grand  jury  or  the  coroner'' s  jury.  He 
stated  that  he  detailed  his  experiences  at  the  Haymarket 
to  Mr.  Grinnell  on  the  Sunday  after  the  Haymarket  meet- 
ing, but  that  he  only  told  Mr.  Grinnell  that  he  believed  he 
coidd  identify  the  -person  zuho  threzv  the  bomb  if  he  sazv 
him;  he  thought^  hozuever,  that  he  told  him  he  sazv  one 
man  strike  the  match  and  light  the  fuse,  and  another  man 
throzv  the  bomb;  he  had  received  money  from  time  to  time 
in  small  sums  from  Bonfcld,  bat  he  had  not  told  any  one 
except  the  officers  named  that  he  saw  the  act  oj  lighting 
the  bomb  accomplished.      (A,  303;  N,  56.) 

We  will  also  demonstrate: 

(i.)      Spies  did  not  enter  Crane  Bros.'  alley. 

(2.)  Fischer  was  at  Zepf's  Hall  a  half  a  block  dis- 
tant when  the  bomb  exploded. 

(3.)      The  bomb  was  not  thrown  from  the  alley. 

(4.)  The  bomb  was  thrown  from  fifteen  to  forty  feet 
from  the  alley,  from  behind  some  boxes  on  the  sidewalk 
on  Desplaines  street. 

(5-)  Spies  remained  0)1  the  speaker'' s  zuagon,  excQ^t  to 
go  for  Parsons,  all  the  time  from  the  commencement  of 
the  meeting  until  the  order  to  disperse  was  given;  he  then 
dismounted  and  went  to  Zepf's  Hall. 


31 


Exculpatory  Evidence. 

( I . )      Gilmer's  Evidence. 

(i.)  August  Spies  (A,  303;  N,  53):  When  Captain 
Ward  demanded  the  dispersion  of  the  meeting  Spies  xuas 
on  the  -ivagon,  and  his  brother  Henry  and  Ernest  Legner 
standing  beside  the  zvagon  reached  their  hands  to  help 
him  dismount.  As  he  reached  the  sidewalk  he  heard 
the  explosion;  he  was  then  swept  along  by  the  people 
going  north  and  entered  Zepf's  Hall;  did  not  go  to  the 
alley  nor  in  the  direction  0/  the  alley.  Also  see  Spies' 
testimony,  given  more  fully  in  the  exculpatory  evidence 
of  Schwab,  ante^  page. 

(2.)  Henry  Spies  (A.,  241,  242;  M,  148,  150): 
When  the  police  commanded  the  meeting  to  disperse,  his 
brother  yl//^7/5/  zuas  still  on  the  zvagon;  he  (Henry)  was 
standing  beside  the  wagon  and  told  August  to  get  off;  he 
reached  out  his  hand  and  helped  him  down.  Just  as 
August  dismounted  from  the  wagon,  some  one 
jumped  behind  with  a  pistol,  and  in  warding  off  the  pis- 
tol shot  from  August,  received  it  in  his  own  person,  the 
ball  passing  through  the  testicle  in  a  downward  and 
oblique  direction.  On  the  trial  the  direction  of  this 
ball  was  demonstrated  by  the  production  of  the 
clothing  worn  by  Henry,  showing  where  the  ball  went  in 
and  came  out,  and  by  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Thilo,  who  at- 
tended Henry  for  the  wound.      (A.,  275.) 

(3.)  Capt.  Bonfield  swears  that  when  August  Spies 
was  first  arrested  he  gave  substantially  the  same  account 
of  his  movements  the  night  of  the  meeting  as  here  claimed, 
and  that  Legner  was  with  him.      (A.,  27;  J,  349,  350.) 


32 

(4-)  Ernest  Legner  was  a  witness  before  the  grand 
jury,  his  name  endorsed  on  the  indictment,  but  was  not 
used  as  a  witness.  We  chiim,  therefore,  that  Legner, 
when  under  oath,  gave  the  same  account  as  to  Spies  being 
on  the  wagon  when  the  police  came  up,  his  helping  Spies 
dismount  at  the  time  of  the  explosion,  and  that  had  Leg- 
ner testified  on  the  trial,  he  would  have  testified  to  the 
fact  as  having  occurred  in  that  wav,  as  well  as  to  the  fact 
of  his  being  with  Spies  and  Schnaubelt,  on  the  way  from 
the  wagon  in  search  of  Parsons,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
meeting,  and  that  Schwab  was  not  with  them. 

(5.)  Joseph  Bach  (A.,  280,  281;  M,  404,  405): 
He  and  Mitlacher  were  standing  on  a  platform  by  the 
door  of  a  building  south  of  the  alley  on  Desplaines  street, 
east  sidewalk,  about  six  feet  from  the  alley,  and  from  this 
elevation  could  look  over  the  heads  of  people  standing  on 
the  sidewalk  and  in  the  alley,  and  have  a  distinct  view  of 
the  wagon  and  those  about  it.  When  the  police  came  up 
he  looked  at  them  and  then  at  the  wagon;  he  sazu  Henry 
Spies  and  noticed  Aug'ust  Spies  attempt '  to  get  from  the 
wagon  on  to  the  sideiualJc.  Witness  then  turned  away, 
and  had  taken  but  one  or  two  steps  when  the  bomb  ex- 
ploded. He  noticed  August  Spies  getting  off  the  wagon 
and  Henry,  with  his  arm  extended  to  help  him  down. 

(6.)  Max  Mitlacher  saw,  after  the  police  came. up, 
Fielden  and  Spies  standing  on  the  wagon;  saiu  Spies 
jmnp  dozvn  from  the  wagon  on  the  cast  side;  sazu  Henry 
reach  up  and  help  him  doxvii. 

(7.)  Sleeper  T.  Ingram,  a  workingman  in  the  em- 
ploy of  Crane  Bros.,  who  lives  with  his  parents  (A.,  286, 
287),  was  on  the  steps  of  Crane  Bros.'  establishment  im- 
mediately east  of  the  wagon,  but  a  few  feet  from  it,  when 


33 

the  police  came  up.  Fielden  and  Spies  were  on  the 
wagon  at  that  time.  (M,  449.)  As  Fielden  made  the 
remark  they  zvcre  peaceable,  Spies  turned  around  and 
started  to  go  off  the  zvagon.  He  reached  his  le/t  hand 
dozvn  to  be  assisted,  stooped  and  jumped,  and  had  no 
more  than  got  to  the  sideivalk  zuhen  the  bomb  exploded. 

(8.)  Conrad  Messer  (A.,  208) :  He  saw  both  Fielden 
and  Spies  on  the  wagon,  when  the  police  came  up  and 
the  command  to  disperse  was  given  (L,  400).  Spies  left 
the  wagon  two  or  three  seconds  before  Fielden  did;  saw 
Spies  on  the  zvagon  zuhen  the  comnmnd  for  dispersing  zvas 
given.      (L,  400.) 

(9.)  August  Krumm  (L,  414,  416):  He  was  in  the 
alley  near  the  mouth  of  it,  with  his  friend  Albright,  near 
the  building  to  the  south,  when  the  police  came  up;  a 
short  time  before  the  police  came  up,  he  had  struck  a 
match  and  lighted  his  pipe,  and  held  it  while  Albright 
lighted  his  pipe.  N'o  other  match  zuas  lighted,  nor  a/iy 
fuse  lighted,  in  the  alley  at  that  time;  he  did  not  see  Spies 
come  into  the  alley  that  night. 

(10.)  WiLEiAM  Albright  (A.,  217,  218)  same  as 
Krumm. 

(11.)  William  Murphy  (A.,  255):  He  got  up  on 
the  speaker's  wagon  to  look  for  a  friend  whom  he  sup- 
posed to  be  in  the  crowd,  and  remained  on  the  wagon  till 
he  heard  the  word  disperse. 

There  were  about  six  persons  on  the  wagon  and  no  one 
got  dozvn. 

(12.)  Adolph  Tennes  (A.,  259;  M,  269):  At  the 
time  the  officers  came  to  the  meeting  he  stood  about  four 
or  five  feet  south  of  the  wagon;  as  soon  as   he  heard  the 


34 

order  to  disperse  given,  he  ran.     Al  the  time  he  started. 
Spies  was  still  on  the  zua^'oii. 

(13.)  Mr.  Fielden:  He  testifies  that  Spies  was  on 
the  wagon  when  Ward  was  talking  with  him  (A.,  268; 
M,  318). 

Gihner  testified  for  the  State  that  when  Spies  came 
into  the  alley  he  saw  him  come  down  J'ro/n  the  zuao-on- 
(A.,  141;  K,  363.)  On  cross-examination  he  said  that 
at  the  time  Spies  came  into  the  alley,  the  place 
where  Gilmer  was  standing  was  twelve  or  fourteen 
feet  from  the  mouth  of  the  alley  into  the  alley,  and  it 
was  physically  impossible  for  him  to  have  seen  the  wagon 
from  that  point.  Being  thus  cornered,  he  said  Spies  did 
not  get  down  from  the  wagon,  but  came  from  towards 
the  wagon,  where  he  had  seen  him  standing  on  the 
sidewalk  before  he,  Gilmer,  came  into  the  alley.  (A., 
144;  K,  378,  380.) 

(14.)  Otto  Wandrey  (A.,  247,  2-|8;  Vol.  M,  190, 
196):  That  he  was  at  the  Hay  market  meeting  with  Fischer 
on  the  night  of  the  4th,  between  9  and  10  o'clock.  After 
listening  to  the  speaking  for  about  a  half  an  hour  they 
went  to  Zepf's  saloon,  where  they  had  a  glass  of  beer, 
sitting  at  a  table  close  behind  and  a  little  north  of  the 
stove.  At  the  time  of  the  explosion  of  the  bomb,  Fischer 
zvas  zvith  Wandrey  at  Zepfs  Hall ;  zuiioi  he  and  Fischer 
entered  Zepfs  saloon,  he  loo  iced  at  the  clocic  audit  zvas  a 
little  after  10. 

(15.)  Lieut.  Shay,  a  witness  for  the  State  (A,,  60;  J, 
72),  admitted  he  had  a  conversation  with  Fischer  while 
the  latter  was  under  arrest  at  police  headquarters,  in 
which  Fischer  stated  to  him  that  on  the  (»vening  of  the 
4th  of    May,  /le  zvas  at  Zcpfh  Hall  at    the  time  of  the 


35 

explosion  of  the  bomb  in  company  with  Wandrey.  Directly 
thereafter,  Wandrey  was  sent  for  by  Shay  and  stated  that 
Fischer  was  in  Zept's  Hall  with  him  at  the  time  of  the 
explosion. 

(i6.)  Mrs.  Lizzie  A.  Holmes  (A.,  262;  M,  287, 
288):  Went  with  Mrs.  Parsons,  Mr.  Parsons  and  Mr. 
Brown  from  the  Haymarket  to  Zepf's  Hall  shortly  before 
the  explosion  of  the  bomb,  and  was  there  with  those  par- 
ties when  the  bomb  exploded.  After  entering'  the  hall, 
she  sazu  Fischer  sitting'  at  the  table  further  north,  and  sazv 
him  there  f-orn  time  to  time  7(p  to  the  explosion  of  the 
bomb,  and  does  not  think  he  left  the  building  in  the  inter- 
val at  all. 

(17.)  Thomas  Brown  (A.,  238,  239;  M.,  12.),  125) 
went  to  Zepf's  Hall  on  the  night  of  the  Haymarket  meet- 
ing, while  Fielden  was  speaking,  in  company  with  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Holmies.  When  I  had  entered  the  saloon,  sazu  Fischer 
there.  This  zuas  just  before  the  bomb  zuas  exploded. 
Did  not  see  Fischer  go  out. 

(18.)  Albert  Parsons  (A.,  314,  315;  N,  115), 
about  ten  minutes  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Hay- 
market meeting,  went  in  company  with  Mr.  Brown, 
Mrs.  Parsons  and  Mrs.-  Holmes  to  Zepf's  saloon.  After 
entering,  he  noticed  Fischer  sitting  at  one  of  the  tables, 
spoke  to  him;  sat  himself  at  the  same  table  a  fezv 
moments,  then  zuent  aronnd  zviiere  the  ladies  zuere, 
and  almost  instantly  thereafter  zvas  the  fash  of  the  ex- 
plosion of  the  bomb  follozued  by  the  roar  of  the  explosion 
and  almost  simultaneously  heard  the  volley  of  revolvers 
By  Gilmer's  testimony,  Fischer  was  with  Spies  in  the 
alley,  when  in  fact  he  was  in  Zepf's  saloon. 

As  a   result    of    this    whole    matter,  we  have  Gilmer's 


36 

testimony  wholly  uncorroborated  on  the  one  side,  and 
on  the  other,  seventeen  witnesses,  who  swear  to  facts,  the 
most  of  which  are  absolutely  incompatible  with  the  truth 
of  Gilmer's  statement. 


I. 

THE  BOMB  WAS  NOT  THROWN  FROM  THE  ALLEY. 

(i.)  Officer  Louis  Haas,  witness  for  the  state  (A., 
128;  K,  252,  253)  attended  the  meeting  in  citizen's  clothes 
and  at  the  time  of  throwing  the  bomb  was  standing  in  the 
center  of  the  street  and  within  five  or  six  feet  of  the 
wagon.  He  says  the  bomb  came,  from  about  five  or  six 
feet  south  of  the  corner  of  the  alley. 

(2.)  Paul  C.  Hull,  reporter  of  the  Daily  News, 
witness  for  the  state  (A.,  116)  was  standing  at  the  time 
of  explosion  upon  a  landing  at.  the  head  of  the  stairway 
on  the  brick  building  on  the  north-east  corner  of  Ran- 
dolph and  Desplaines.  Directly  opposite  to  where  he 
stood  was  a  pile  of  boxes,  south  of  the  lamp-post  on  the 
east  side  of  Desplaines.  He  saw  the  bomb  in  process 
through  the  air,  and  it  seemed  to  coine  from  about  fifteen 
to  tiventy  feet  south  of  Crane's  alley,  flying  over  the  heads 
of  the  police  (K,  124.) 

(3.)  Heinemann,  reporter  for  the  Tribune  and  witness 
for  the  state  (A.,  126;  K,  325)  was  at  the  time  of  the 
explosion  on  the  east  of  the  sidewalk  of  Desplaines,  half 
way  between  Crane  Brothers'  alley  and  Randolph,  saw 
the  bomb  rise  out  of  the  crowd,  that  it  rose  from  near  the 
south-east  corner  of  the  alley. 


37 


On  behalf  of  the  defendants: 

(4.)  Barton  Simonson  (A.,  178,  179;  L,  171)  says 
at. the  time  police  came  he  stood  upon  stairway  of  the 
building  north-east  of  the  corner  of  Randolph  and  Des- 
plaines.  about  half  way  up  the  stairs,  which  brought  his 
head  probably  twent}"  feet  from  the  ground  and  gave  him 
a  clear  view  over  the  heads  of  the  audience.  Bomb  came 
from  a  point  nearlv  tzuenty  feet  south  of  the  south  line  of 
Crane''s  alley,  from  the  center  of  the  sidewalk  on  the  east 
side  of  the  street  and  from  behind  some  boxes. 

(5.)  LuDwiG  Zeller  (A.,  184;  L,  149,  150)  stood 
near  lamp-post  on  the  alley;  after  the  order  to  disperse 
was  given  turned  to  walk  south  to  Randolph.  As  he 
turned,  saw  a  lighted  fuse  go  through  the  air  from  six, 
eight  or  ten  feet  south  of  the  lamp.  Explosion  imme- 
diately after.  On  cross-examination  (A.,  185;  L,  159'), 
was  standing  at  the  moment  bomb  vvas  thrown,  fve  or 
six  feet  south  of  the  alley  and  saw  a  lighted  fuse  eight  or 
ten  feet  south  of  him. 

(6.)  Frederick  Liebel  (A.,  188,  189;  L,  201,  203) 
was  standing  near  lamp-post  when  police  came  up.  As 
the,  order  to  disperse  was  given,  turned  to  go  south  to 
get  out  of  the  crowd.  As  he  proceeded  south,  he  saw 
a  lighted  fuse  which  at  the  time  he  took  to  be  a  stump  of 
a  cigar  thrown  from  sidewalk  near  niidzvay  betzveen  the 
alley  and  Randolph  street.     Bomb  immediately  exploded. 

(7.)  Dr.  James  D.  Taylor  (x\.,  191,  192;  L,  230) 
stood  over  the  curb-stone  at  intersection  of  street  and 
alley  on  north  side  of  Crane's  alley.  Saw  the  bomb  in 
the  air  somewhere  betzveen  tzuenty  and  forty  feet  south 
of  the  alley,  and  the  man  who  threw   it   stood    beyond    a 


38 

number  of  boxes  which  stood  south  of  the  lamp-post.  He 
revisited  the  scene  the  next  morning  and  saw  the  boxes 
still  there. 

(8.)  William  Urban  (A,  201,  344)  saw  something 
like  a  fire-cracker  in  the  air,  followed  by  an  explosion 
and  then  pistol  shooting.  What  looked  to  him  like  a  fire- 
cracker came  from  ffteen  to  eighteen  feet  south  of  the 
lam-p-post  at  Crane'' s  alley. 

(9.)  August  Krumm  (A.,  210;  L,  415)  stood  near 
the  mouth  of  the  alley  next  the  building  on  the  south. 
The  bomb  must  have  started  about  tzventy  feet  south  of 
the  alley ;  was  about  twelve  feet  in  the  air  when  I  saw 
it.  //  could  not  have  started  at  the  alley.,  and  did  not. 
Saw  a  streak  of  fire  right  after  and  heard  the  explosion 
of  the  bomb. 

(10.)  William  Albright  (page  217;  L,  493)  was 
with  Krumm.  Bomb  zvas  not  lighted  or  throzvn  from  the 
alley  zuhere  they  stood. 

(11.)  Joseph  Bach  and  Max  Mitlacher  did  not  see 
any  object  thrown  from  the  alley  into  the  street.  (A., 
281;  M,  407,  408;  A.,  285;  M,  433.) 

(12.)  John  Hcloway  (A.,  230,  231)  stood  against 
lamp-post  at  Crane's  alley  (M,  58).  He  was  looking  at 
the  speaker's  wagon  at  the  time  of  the  dispersion  and  until 
explosion  of  bomb  (M,  59,  60).  Says  he  is  sure  nothing 
came  out  of  the  alley  zvhile  he  stood  there.  (M,  63). 
From  his  position,  if  the  bomb  had  been  thrown  from  the 
alley  it  could  not  have  escaped  his  attention. 

(13.)     George  Koehler    stood     on    the    north-west 

corner  of  Randolph  and  Desplaines;  saw  the  bomb  come 

Jro)n  the  east  side  of  the  street  and  Jrom  opposite  zvhere 


39 

he  stood  from  the  middle  of  the  sidewalk  and   flying  in  a 
north-westerly  direction, 

(14.)  Edward  Lehnert  stood  on  the  west  side  o£ 
Desplaines  street,  thirty  paces  from  Randolph,  twenty 
paces  south  from  opposite  the  wagon.  Saw  a  streak 
of  tire  that  looked  like  a  stump  of  cigar  in  the  air.  It 
came  from  tzventy  paces  south  of  the  alley. 

(15.)  John  Bernett  ( A.,292;  M,  493):  At  the  Hay- 
market  meeting  at  the  time  of  the  explosion.  Stood  about 
thirty-eigJit  feet  south  of  Crane''s  alley .  On  the  Wednesday 
preceding  his  testimony  made  a  careful  examination  of 
the  ground  to  find  out  the  locality  where  he  stood.  He 
saw  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb.  Saw  the  bomb  go 
through  the  air,  direction  west  and  a  little  north.  The 
man  who  threw  the  bomb  zu.is  right  in  front  of  Bernett  at 
the  time,  was  about  Bernett's  size,  having  moustache 
with  no  chin  beard.  Being  shown  SchnaubeWs  -photo- 
graphy says  that  is  )iot  the  man.  Tiie  bomb  zuas  thrown 
prom  about  fifteen  peet  south  of  the  alley.  There  was  a 
pile  of  boxes  south  of  the  lamp-post  which  was  on  the 
corner  of  the  alley.  When  the  bomb  was  thrown  he  saw 
the  motion  of  throwing;  saw  the  fire  right  from  the  hand, 
followed  the  light  with  his  e3-e,  saw  the  light  when  the 
bomb  exploded,  heard  the  explosion,  saw  a  flash  and  then 
ran  away.     (A.,  294.) 

On  cross-examination  he  states  that  he  had  told 
Capt.  Schaack  and  Grinnell  he  could  not  tell  how  the 
man  did  look.  He  told  Mr.  Furthman  that  the  bomb 
was  thrown  about  fp'teen  steps  south  of  the  alley. 

On  re-direct  he  said  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb  was 
but  little  larger  than  himself,  and  had  a  mustache,  but  no 
chin  zuhiskcrs. 


40 

Against  this  arra}^  is  Gilmer's  testimony  unsupported 
by  any  witness  in  the  record.  As  contradictory  thereof 
we  have  Hull  and  Heinemann  for  the  state,  and  twelve 
witnesses  for  the  defense.  Gilmer  is  therefore  contra- 
dicted by  fifteen  witnesses. 


11. 

GILMER    WAS    IMPEACHED    BY 


(I 

(2 

(3 
(4 

(5 
(6 
(7 
(8 
(9 


Lucius  M.  Moses  (A.,  194,  195;  L,  268-273), 

Mrs.  B.  P.  Lee  (A.,  195,  196;  L,  279). 

John  G.  Brixey  (A.,  199). 

John  Garrick  (A.,  200). 

Mary  Grubb  (A.,  227). 

Phineas  H.  Adams  (A.,  250). 

Edward  H.  Castle  (A.,  258). 

H.  S.  Howe  (A.,  259). 

John  W.  Gage  (A.,  292). 


He  was  sustained,  first,  by  Judge  Cole  and  Governor 
Merrill,  of  Iowa,  zc/io  testified  they  zvere  not  in  Chicago 
at  the  evening  of  the  ^th  at  the  Palmer  House  or  elsewhere, 
and  were  not  expecting  to  be  in  Chicago  at  that  time.  Had 
no  appointment  to  meet  Gilmer,  never  communicated  with 
Gilmer,  never  had  any  correspondence  luith  him,  nor  jnade 
such  appointment  w/th  him.  Thus  Gilmer  began  his  tes- 
timony with  a  falsehood.  The  Iowa  witnesses  lived  in  a 
different  circle  of  life  from  Gilmer.  The  Chicago  wit- 
nesses also  lived  in  different  circles  of  life  from  Gilmer, 
and  knew  him  but  slightly.  Most  of  these  witnesses  did 
not  know  where  Gilmer  lived  or  what  his  neighbors 
thought  of  him.  The  witnesses  for  the  defense  moved 
in  the  same  circle  Gilmer  did,  and  knew  him  well. 


41 


III 


GILMER    MADE    CONTRADICTORY    STATEMENTS. 

(i.)  W.  A.  S.  Graham,  repoyter  for  the  Chicago 
Times  (Abst.,  321,  322;  Vol.  M,  144,  149);  also,  (A., 
143;  K,  370),  says  Gilmer  told  him,  on  the  5th  day  of 
May,  at  the  central  station,  that  he  believed  he  could 
identify  the  man  who  threw  the  bomb  if  he  ever  saw  him 
again. 

Graham  further  testifies:  I  asked  what  kind  of  a  look- 
ing man  he  was,  and  Gilmer  said,  he  was  a  man  of 
medium  height,  and,  I  think,  had  whiskers;  he  wore 
a  soft  black  felt  hat,  but  his  back  was  turned  towards  me. 
He  said  nothing  about  anybody  else  in  that  connection. 
This  conversation  was  about  4  o'clock  on  Ma}-  5th.  Ke 
said  nothing  about  there  being  more  than  one  man  at  that 
location,  and  notJiiug  of  a  knot  of  incii,  or  anything  of 
that  kind.  He  said  one  man  lighted  t/ie  fuse  and  threzu 
the  bomb.  The  conduct  of  the  witness,  Gilmer,  in  keep- 
ing this  information  to  himself,  who,  the  next  day,  gave 
statements  different  from  his  statement  on  the  stand,  are 
matters  to  which  we  call  attention  of   the  court. 

The  question  for  this  court,  in  conclusion,  is:  is  the 
testimon}^  of  Gilmer  for  the  State,  who  received  unknown 
sums  of  money  from  the  State,  who  made  no  outcry  upon 
seeing  this  startling  and  wicked  act,  who  communicated 
the  fact  to  no  one,  who  told  the  story  at  first  leaving  out 
the  vital  fact,  who  in  such  testimony  is  contradicted  by  three 
witnesses  for  the  State,  and  on  all  points  b}'  thirty-two  wit- 
nesses for  the  defense,  who  began  his  testimony  with  a  lie 
about  having  an  engagement  to  meet  Judge  Cole  and  Gov- 


42 

ernor  Merrill,  of  Iowa,  that  ni^ht,  at  the  Palmer  House, 
and  who  is  successfully  impeached  by  nine  witnesses  who 
knew  him  well  and  lived  in  the  same  social  circle  with 
him,  is  such  testimony,  we  repeat,  sufficiently  reliable  to 
hang  anybody  on? 

(2.)  The  McCormick  Meeting  and  Revenge 
Circular. 

On  the  afternoon  of  May  3d,  Mr.  Spies  attended  the  so- 
called  McCormick  meeting.  The  testimony  introduced 
by  the  state  as  to  that  meeting  is  as  follows:  On 
the  afternoon  of  that  day  a  meeting  of  the  Lumber 
Shovers'  Union  was  held  in  the  vicinity  of  McCor- 
mick's  factor}^,  whose  object  was  to  receive  the  report 
of  a  committee  that  had  been  sent  to  the  bosses  of  the 
lumber  yards  to  get  the  eight-hour  concession.  There 
were  from  five  to  six  thousand  men  in  the  crowd.  The 
meeting  was  addressed  from  the  top  of  a  freight  car  first 
by  one  Fehling,  afterwards  by  Spies,  the  plaintiff  in  error. 
Haraster,  the  president  of  the  Bohemian  section  of  the 
Lumber  Shovers'  Union,  tried  to  prevent  the  speakers 
from  speaking,  and  told  the  people  not  to  listen  to  them. 
(A.,  34,  35.)  Spies  addressed  the  crowd  in  German 
for  about  ten  or  fifteen  minutes;  he  was  rather  excited, 
and  very  earnest;  the  crowd  patiently  listened  to  him  un- 
til the  bell  of  McCormick's  factory  rung  (A.,  33;  I, 
402),  when  all  of  a  sudden  somebody  on  the  opposite 
end  of  the  car  from  which  Spies  was  speaking  (A., 
33;  I,  398,  402)  shouted,  "  Now,  boys,  let  us  go  for  them 
"  damn  scabs."  At  that  moment  a  portion  of  the  crowd 
which  was  near  McCormick's  factory  commenced  to 
move  towards  McCormick's.  (A.,  2i'->  h  403-)  Spies 
did    not    go    with    the    crowd.      (A.,    32;    I,    395,    396.) 


43 

The   crowd   pitched  into  McCormick's  men  going  home 
from  work,  threw  bricks,  stones  and  sticks  into  them  and 
into   the   windows    of    the    factory.     Officer    West    (A., 
31),  who  was   stationed    at    the    factory,  was  himself   at- 
tacked; he  turned  in  the  alarm  for  the  police,  who  arrived 
within    a   few    minutes    and   scattered  the  crowd  (A.,  32 ; 
I,  392),  firing  into  them,  and  using    their  clubs.      Officer 
Knright    (A.,  35)    claims   that   he  heard   shots   from   the 
crowd,  but   he    cannot  say  whether    the    police   had  fired 
before  he  heard  those  shots.      However,  none  of  the  po- 
lice  were    shot,   though    some    of    them    were    hit    with 
stones.    (A.,  35;  1,420.)      Immediately    after    the    patrol 
wagon,    containing   eleven    policemen,   had    arrived    (A., 
35;  I,  416),  a  couple  of  hundred    other  policemen  came 
upon  the  ground    (A.,   36;  I,  421);  at   that  time,   how- 
ever, the  firing  was   over.     The   crowd  scattered  as  soon 
as    they    saw    the    additional    force    approaching.     (A., 
:^6;  I,   422.)     Officer   Shane  testified    (A.,    36)  that   he 
was  detailed  to  look  up  the  injured   citizens,  and  admits 
that  he  found,  as   a    result   of  the   police   firing,  one  who 
died,  and  two  or  three    others  who  were  injured.      As  to 
the   contents  of  Spies'  speech,  the  o/j/y  testimony  offered 
by  the  state  is   that   of   Mr.    Baker,    who   says    (A.,    33; 
1,402)   he  heard   him   speak   0/  zuives  and  children  and 
homes,  and  appealing  for  their  p'otediou. 

In  connection  with  the  foregoing  testimony  the  state 
was  permitted  to  introduce  in  evidence  an  account  of  the 
McCormick  meeting,  written  by  Spies  and  published  in 
the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  the  following  day.  (People's  Ex- 
hibit 63;  I  A.,  179). 

The  testimony  introduced  in  behalf  of  the  plaintiff  in 
error,  Spies,  as  to  the  McCormick  meeting,  so  called,  was 
in  brief  as  follows:     That  on  Sunday   morning,  May   2d, 


44 

at  a  meeting  of  the  Central  Labor  Union,  which  is  a  body 
composed  of  delegates  from  about  tvventy-tive  or  thirty 
different  labor  unions  in  Chicago  (A.,  185;  L,  156), 
the  delegates  of  the  Lumber  Shovers'  Union,  then  on  a 
strike  for  the  shortening  of  the  hours  of  labor,  suggested 
that  a  meeting  of  the  lumber  shovers  had  been 
called  for  Monday  afternoon  at  the  Black  road, 
and  requested  that  a  good  speaker,  who  could 
keep  the  meeting  quiet  and  orderly,  be  sent  to 
that  meeting.  In  the  afternoon,  at  another  meeting  of 
the  Central  Labor  Union,  which  Mr.  Spies  attended  in 
the  capacity  of  a  reporter,  Mr.  Zeller,  of  the  agitation 
committee  of  the  Central  Labor  Union,  requested  Mr. 
Spies  to  go  out  the  next  day  and  address  the  lumber 
shovers'  meeting.  All  this  is  uncontradicted  and  appears 
from  the  testimony  of  Zeller  (A.,  184,  185;  L,  155,  156), 
Urban  (A.,  201;  L,  340-342),  Witt  [A.,  251),  and  Spies 
(A.,  297;  N,  20). 

On  the  following  day,  JMonda\',  May  3,  Spies  went 
out  to  the  appointed  place  of  meeting,  and  found  there 
gathered  a  crowd  of  over  six  thousand  men.  Other 
speakers  were  present,  some  of  whom  preceded  him 
upon  the  platform.  He  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Breest, 
secretary  of  the  Lumber  Shovers'  Union.  Objection 
to  his  speaking  was  made  by  some  persons  present, 
on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  socialist,  but  Breest 
stated  that  Spies  had  been  invited  to  address  the 
audience  and  was  sent  by  the  Central  Labor  Union.  Mr. 
Spies  then  proceeded  to  speak.  (A.,  297;  A.,  253.)  The 
substance  of  his  speech  was  to  the  effect  that  he  advised 
the  workin"-men  to  stand  tou'ether  and  to  enforce  their 
demands  at  all  hazards,  otherwise  the  bosses  would,  one 
by  one,   defeat  them.      Nothing   was    said    by   him   of  an 


45       . 

incendiary  nature;  no  suggestion  of  violence  was  made, 
not  one  word  was  said  in  regard  to  the  use  of  force  or 
arms.  (A.,  297;  N,  23.)  Besides  the  testimony  of 
Spies,  this  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Witt  (A.,  252; 
M,  220),  Breest  (A.,  253;  M,  229),  Schlavin  (A.,  254; 
M,  233),   Pfeiffer   (A.,  254;   M,  236). 

Spies  swears  that  he  had  no  idea,  when  he  was  invited, 
of  any  relationship  of  McCormick's  employes  to  that 
meeting,  or  that  the  locality  of  the  proposed  meeting  was 
in  the  proximity  of  the  McCormick  works.  (A.,  297; 
N,  21.)  Besides,  it  is  shown,  without  contradiction,  that 
the  lumber  shovers  whom  Spies  was  addressing  had 
absolutely  no  connection  ivith  the  factory  or  employes  0/ 
McCormick.     (A.,  252;  M,  221;  A.,  255,  M,  237.) 

While  Spies  was  speaking  and  when  McCormick's  bell 
rancT,  a  part  of  the  crowd  on  the  outskirts,  some  500 
people,  detached  themselves  and  ran  towards  where  the 
men  were  coming  out  of  McCormick's  works,  distant 
some  three  or  four  blocks  from  the  meeting.  Spies 
beckoned  to  the  crowd  to  remain,  saying,  in  the  course  of 
his  remarks,  that  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  McCor- 
mick's. He  went  on  with  his  speech  to  a  conclusion, 
speaking  some  five  or  ten  minutes  after  the  interruption, 
and  was  thereupon  elected  by  the  Lumber  Shovers'  Union 
as  a  member  of  a  committee  appointed  to  wait  upon  the 
lumber  bosses.      (A.,  252;  M,  223;  A.,  298;  N,  24.) 

Meantime  the  sound  of  shots  was  heard  at  the  meeting, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  police  drove  up  in  a  patrol 
wagon  towards  McCormick's,  followed  immediately  by  a 
large  number  of  police  on  foot.  Then  only,  Mr.  Spies, 
who  to  his  duties  as  editor  of  the  i\rbeiter 
Zeitung  added  those  of  a  reporter  for  the  same 
paper,      went      up      to      McCormick's,      and,      coming 


46 

•into  the  neighborhood  of  the  meeting,  discovered  that  the 
police  were  chasing  people  who  were  unarmed  and  flee- 
ing in  every  direction,  pursuing  them  behind  cars  and 
in  various  localities,  and  firing  upon  them  indiscriminately. 

At  that  moment  he  was  advised  by  one  whom  he 
met  coming  from  the  direction  of  McCormick's,  a 
stranger  to  him,  that  two  men  had  been  carried  aivay 
dead,  and  at  least  twent3"-five  had  been  shot,  adding 
words  of  contempt  for  the  union  men,  assembled  there 
who  would  let  those   men  be  shot  down  like  dogs. 

Mr.  Spies  admits  that  his  blood  was  boiling  over  what 
he  heard  and  witnessed,  and  that  he  thereupon  went  back 
to  the  meeting  that  he  had  been  addressing,  and  made  an 
appeal  to  them  that  they  should  proceed  to  the  relief  of 
the  parties  who  were  under  the  fire  of  the  police,  near  the 
McCormick  works,  but  they  were  unconcerned  and  went 
home.  Seeing  that  nothing  could  be  done.  Spies  returned 
to  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office,  and  under  the  excitement  of 
the  hour,  and  what  he  had  seen  and  heard,  wrote  the  Re- 
venge circular. 

There  were  printed  about  twenty-five  hundred  of  those 
circulars  (x\.,  84;  J,  280),  but  not  more  than  half  of 
them  were  actually  distributed  (A.,  298;  N,  27). 

In  regard  to  his  motives  in  publishing  this  circular,  Mr. 
Spies  gives  the  following  explanation  (A.,  311;  N,  99  e/ 
seg.):  "  When  I  wrote  it,  I  thought  it  was  proper;  I 
"  don't  think  so  now.  I  wrote  it  to  arouse  the  workinij 
"  people,  who  are  stupid  and  ignorant,  to  a  consciousness 
"  of  the  condition  that  they  were  in,  not  to  submit 
"  to  such  brutal  treatment  as  that  by  which  they 
"  had  been  shot  down  at  McCormick's.  I  wanted 
"  them  not  to  attend  meetings  under  such  circumstances 
"  unless  they  could  resist.      I  didn't  want  them  to  do  any- 


47 

"  thing  in  particular;  I  didn't  want  them  to  do  anything^ 
"  That  I  called  them  to  arms  is  a  phrase,  probably  an 
"  extravagance.  I  did  intend  that  they  should  arm  them- 
"  selves.  I  have  called  upon  the  workingmen  for  years 
"  and  years,  and  others  have  done  the  same  thing  before 
"  me,  to  arm  themselves;  they  have  a  right  under  the 
"  constitution  to  arm  themselves,  and  it  would  be  well  for 
"  them  if  they  were  all  armed.  I  called  on  them  to  arm 
"  themselves,  not  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  the  lawfully 
"  constituted  authorities  of  the  city  and  county,  in  case 
"  they  should  meet  with  opposition  from  them,  but  for 
"  the  purpose  of  resisting  the  unlawful  attacks  of  the 
"  police,  or  the  unconstitutional  or  unlawful  demands  of 
"  any  organization,  whether   police,  militia  or  any  other." 

There  is  other  evidence  tendmg  to  show  that  this  cir- 
cular was  printed  at  the  Arbeiter  Zietung  office,  Spies 
detaining  some  workman  after  six  o'clock  for  that  purpose. 

This  circular  was  read  at  the  meeting  at  Grief 's  Hall 
on  the  night  of  the  3d  of  Ma}',  but  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  Spies,  who  was  not  there.  It  was  addressed  to 
the  community,  and  not  a  class.      (A.,  27;  O,  34.8,  349.) 

On  the  morning  of  the  Haymarket  meeting  Spies,  who 
by  this  time  had  gotten  his  head  back  upon  his  shoulders 
and  was  cooled  off,  was  asked  by  Fischer  to  address  that 
meeting  in  the  evening  at  the  Haymarket  (A.,  229; 
N,  29  and  30),  shortly  afterwards  he  saw  the  following 
advertisement: 

"  Attention,  Workingmen!  Great  mass-meeting  to- 
"  night,  at  7:30  o'clock,  at  the  Haymarket,  Randolph  St., 
"  bet.  Desplaines  and  Halsted.  Good  speakers  will  be 
"  present  to  denounce  the  latest  atrocious  act  of  the  police, 
"  the  shooting  of  our  fellow-workmen  yesterday  afternoon. 
"  Work/iig;inen,  arm  yourselves,  and  appear  in  full  force  I 
"  The  Executive  Committee." 


48 

Spies  said  the  expression,  "  Woj-kiiio-men,  arm  your- 
selves, and  appear  in  fall  forced''  must  be  struck  out  or 
he  would  not  attend  the  meeting  or  speak  there  (A.,  299; 
N,  31,  32);  Fischer  acquiesced  and  sent  to  Wehrer  & 
Klein,  printers,  and  had  the  line  taken  out;  thereafter 
20,000  circulars  were  printed  with  the  line  omitted.  (A., 
299;  N,  32.  A.,  257;  M,  251,253.    A.,  138;  K,  319,  320.) 

(3.)        RUHE. 

There  is  no  evidence  shovvin<r  or  tendinfj  to  show  that 
Mr.  Spies  at  the  time  knew  of  an)^  special  import  attached 
to  that  word.  In  fact,  there  was  no  evidence  introduced 
by  the  state  as  to  how  Mr.  Spies  came  to  write  that  word 
for  publication.  Mr.  Spies  himself  gives  the  following 
account,  which  is  entirel}^  uncontradicted  (A.,  306;  N, 
63  e/  seq.^:  "It  happened  just  the  same  as  with  any 
"  other  announcement  that  would  come  in.  I  received  a 
"  batch  of  announcements  from  a  number  of  labor  or- 
"  ganizations  and  societies  a  little  after  ri  o'clock  in  m}- 
"  editorial  room,  and  went  over  them.  Among  them  was 
"  one  which  read,  '  Mr.  Editor,  please  insert  in  the  letter- 
"  box  the  word  "  Ruhe  "  in  prominent  letters.'  This  was 
"  in  German.  There  is  an  announcement  column  of 
"  meetings  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  and  a  single  word,  or 
"  something  like  that,  would  be  lost  sight  of  in  the  an- 
"  nouncements.  In  such  cases,  people  generally  ask  to 
"  have  that  inserted  under  the  heading  of  letter-box. 
"  Upon  reading  that  request,  I  just  took  a  piece  of  paper 
"  and  marked  on  it  '  Brief-kasten  '  and  the  word  '  Ruhe.' 
"  The  manuscript  which  is  in  evidence  is  in  my  hand- 
"  writing.  At  the  time  I  wrote  that  word,  and  sent  it  up  to 
"  be  put  in  the  paper,  I  did  not  know  of  any  import  what- 
"  ever  attached  to  it." 


49 

This  explanation  finds  corroboration  in  the  testimony  of 
Fricke,  a  witness  for  the  prosecution,  and  formerly  book- 
keeper for  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  who  says  (A.,  43;  I,  487, 
et  seq.^ :  "  About  the  ist  of  May  there  was  sometimes 
"  almost  a  whole  column  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  occupied 
"  by  notices  of  meetings  of  workingmen  at  different 
"  places  and  halls.  They  would  bring  such  notices  to  the 
"  Arbeiter  Zeitung  and  say  to  Mr.  Spies,  '  put  so  and  so 
"  under  the  column  of  meetings.'  It  was  a  common  thing 
"  for  postal  cards  to  be  received  at  the  office  of  the  Ar- 
"  beiter  Zeitung,  and  that  Spies  or  Schwab  would  take  it 
*'  and  read  it  over,  and  then  revise  it  or  alter  it,  and  send 
"  it  up  for  publication  in  the  letter-box,  or  in  this  column 
"  where  notices  were  published." 

Mr.  Spies  further  says  in  regard  to  the  same  subject 
(A.,  306,  165):  "  My  attention  was  next  called  to  the 
"  word  Rii/ie,  a  little  after  3  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 
"  Balthazar  Rau,  an  advertising  agent  of  the  Arbeiter 
"  Zeitung,  came  and  asked  me  if  the  word  Ruhe  was 
"  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung.  I  had  myself  forgotten  about 
"it,  and  took  a  copy  of  the  paper  and  found  it  there. 
"  He  asked  me  if  I  knew  what  it  meant  and  I  said  I  did 
"not.  He  said  there  was  a  rumor  that  the  armed  sections 
"  had  held  a  meeting  the  night  before  and  had  resolved  to 
"  put  in  that  word  as  a  signal  for  the  armed  sections  to  keep 
"themselves  in  readiness,  in  case  the  police  should  precipi- 
"  tate  a  riot,  to  go  to  the  assistance  of  the  attacked.  I  sent 
"for  Fischer,  who  had  invited  me  to  speak  at  the  meeting 
"that  evening,  and  asked  him  if  that  word  had  any  refer- 
"  ence  to  that  meeting.  He  said  none  whatever,  that  it  was 
"  merely  a  signal  for  the  boys,  for  those  who  were  armed 
"to  keep  their  powder  dry  in  case  they  might  be  called 
"  upon  to  fight  within  the  next  days.     I  told  Rau  it  was  a 


50 

"  very  silly  thing,  or  at  least  there  was  not  much  rational 
"  sense  in  that,  and  asked  him  if  he  knew  how  it  could  be 
"  managed  that  this  nonsense  would  be  stopped,  how  it 
"  could  be  undone,  and  Rau  said  he  knew  some  persons  who 
"had  something  to  say  in  the  armed  organizations,  and  I 
"  told  him  to  go  and  tell  them  that  the  xuord  was  -put  in  by 
"  mistake.  Rau  went,  pursuant  to  the  suggestion,  and  re- 
"  turned  to  me  at  5  o'clock.  I  was  not  a  member  of  any 
"armed  section;  I  have  not  been  for  six  years." 

That  the  signal,  Ruhe,  had  no  relation  whatever  to  the 
Haymarket  meeting  will  appear  conclusively  when  we 
come  to  consider  the  Monday  night  meeting.  That  Mr, 
Spies  had  no  knowledge  of  its  meaning  at  the  time  he 
wrote  it  for  insertion  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt; that  he  did  not  consent  to  any  action  to 
be  taken  pursuant  to  such  signal,  and  that,  in  fact,  he  did 
all  he  could  to  prevent  its  being  acted  upon  by  those  who 
knew  its  meaning,  appears  from  his  own  testimony, 
which  is  not  contradicted. 


Exctdpatory  as  to  All  zuho  were  Present. 

THE  CHARACTER   OF   THE   HAYMARKET    MEETING  IF  LEFT 

ALONE. 

Mayor  Harrison  tells  us  (x\.,  174;  L,  27  ct  seq.)  that, 
having  had  a  conversation  with  Inspector  John  Bonfield, 
and  arranged  for  the  presence  of  the  police  at  the  Des- 
plaines  street  station,  to  be  held  in  readiness  against  possi- 
ble violence,  he  concluded  to  attend  the  meeting  in  per- 
son, so  as  to  personally  order  its  dispersion  if,  in  his  judg- 
ment, it  assumed  a  dangerous  tendencv.  It  was  his  own 
determination   to  do  this,  against  the   will  of  the  police. 


SI 

He  attended  the  meeting  from  its  beginning  until  near 
the  close  of  Parsons'  address.  Here  is  his  testimon}'  (A., 
175;  L,  36  et  seq.): 

"  I  did,  in  fact,  take  no  action  at  the  meeting  about  dis- 
"  persing  it.  There  were  occasional  replies  from  the 
"  audience,  as  '  Shoot  him,'  '  Hang  him,'  or  the  like,  but  I 
"  don't  think,  from  the  direction  in  which  they  came, 
"  here  and  there  and  around,  that  there  were  more  than 
"  two  or  three  hundred  actual  sympathizers  with  the 
"  speakers.  Several  times  cries  of  '  Hang  him  '  would 
"  come  from  a  boy  in  the  outskirts,  and  the  crowd  would 
"  laugh.  I  felt  that  the  majority  of  the  crowd  were  idle 
"  spectators,  and  the  replies  nearly  as  much  what  might 
"  be  called  '  guying  '  as  absolute  applause.  Some  of  the 
"  replies  were  evidently  bitter;  they  came  from  immedi- 
"  ately  around  the  stand.  The  audience  numbered  from 
"  eight  hundred  to  one  thousand.  The  people  in  attend- 
"  ance,  so  far  as  I  could  see  during  the  half  hour  before 
"  the  speaking  commenced,  were  apparently  laborers  or 
"  mechanics,  and  the  majority  of  them  not  English  speak- 
"  ing  people,  mostly  Germans.  There  was  no  suggestion 
"  made  by  either  of  the  speakers  looking  toward  calling 
"  for  the  immediate  use  of  force  or  violence  towards  any 
"  person  that  night;  if  there  had  been  I  should  have  dis- 
"  persed  them  at  once.  After  I  came  back  from  the  sta- 
"  tion  Parsons  was  still  speaking,  but  evidently  approach- 
"  ing  a  close.  It  was  becoming  cloudy  and  looked  like 
"  threatening  rain,  and  I  thought  the  thing  was  about  over. 
"  There  was  not  one-fourth  of  the  crowd  that  had  been 
"there  during  the  evening,  listening  to  the  speakers  at 
"  that  time.  In  the  crowd  I  heard  a  great  many  Germans 
"  use  .expressions  of  their  being  dissatisfied  with  bringing 
"  them  there  for  this  speaking.      When  I  went  to  the  sta- 


"  tion,  during  Parsons'  speech,  I  stated  to  Capt.  Bonfield 
"  that  I  thought  the  speeches  were  about  over;  that  noth- 
"  iug  had  occurred  yet,  or  looked  likely  to  occur,  to  require 
"  interference,  and  that  he  had  better  issue  orders  to  his 
"  reserves  at  the  other  stations  to  go  home.  Bonfield  re- 
"  plied  that  he  had  reached  the  same  conclusion  from  re- 
"  ports  brought  to  him,  but  he  thought  it  would  be  best  to 
"  retain  the  men  in  the  station  until  the  meeting  broke  up, 
"  and  then  referred  to  a  rumor  that  he  had  heard  that 
"  night,  which  he  thought  would  make  it  necessary  for 
"  him  to  keep  his  men  there,  which  I  concurred  in.  Dur- 
"  ing  my  attendance  of  the  meeting  I  saw  no  weapons  at 
"  all  upon  an}^  person." 

Upon  cross-examination  he  says  (Abst.,  170): 
The  lumor  referred  to  was  related  to  him  by  Capt. 
Bonfield  immediately  after  his  reaching  the  station, 
Bonfield  told  him  that  he  had  just  received  information 
that  the  Haymarket  meeting,  or  a  part  of  it,  would  go 
over  to  the  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  freight  house,  then 
filled  with  scabs,  and  blow  it  up.  There  was  also  an  ap- 
prehension of  fear  on  Mayor  Harrison's  part  that  this 
meeting  might  be  held  merely  to  attract  the  attention  of 
the  police  to  the  Haymarket,  while  the  real  attack,  if  any, 
should  be  made  that  night  on  McCormick's.  Those 
were  the  contingencies  in  reijard  to  which  he  was  listen- 
ing  to  those  speeches.  In  listening  to  these  speeches,  he 
concluded  it  was  not  an  organization  to  destroy  property 
that  night,  and  went  home. 

Mr.  English,  the  Tribune  reporter,  says  (Abst.,  133; 
K,  284):  "It  was  a  peaceable  and  quiet  meeting  for 
"  an  outdoor  meeting.  I  didn't  see  any  turbulence.  I 
"  was  there  all  the  time." 

That  the  crowd  fired  upon  the  police  is   denied   by    tiie 


53 

followinf^  witnesses:  Simondson  (A.,  179,  L.  73);  Zeller 
(A,  185,  L,  157);  Richter  (A,  1S9,  L,  187);  Liebel 
(A.,  189,  L,  202,  203);  Taylor  (A.,  192,  L,  233):  Sten- 
ner  (A.,  196,  L.  283);  Gusscher  (A,  197,  L,  301,  302)  ; 
Raab  (A,  198,  L,  315,  316);  Urban  (A,  202,  L.  349); 
Hiersemenzel  (A.,  207,  L,  387);  Messer  {A.,  208,  L, 
401);  Lindinger  (A.,  216,  L,  475);  Koehler  (A.,  219,  L, 
514,  515);  Heidekrueger  (A.,  222,  L,  545,  546);  Snyder 
(A.,  237,  M,  112);  Waldo  (A.,  245,  M,  170);  Ingram 
(A.,  287,  288,  M,  451). 

We  beg  leave  here  to  call  attention   to  the    acknowl- 
edged rules  o£   criminative   evidence   as    to  all    the    proof 
which  precedes  this,  and  in  reference  to  all  of  the  defend- 
ants:    (i.)     All  the  facts  which  are  accepted  as  the  basis  of 
the  legal  inference  of  guilt  must  be  clearly  and  satisfactorily 
proven.   The  jury  should  not  entertain  reasonable  doubts  of 
the  truth  of  such  criminative  fact«.     (2.)  Where  the  conclu- 
sion of  guilt  rests  upon  several  facts,  the  jury  must  find  that 
each  fact,  which  it  accepts  as  essential  to  the  conclusion  of 
guilt,  is  established  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  the  same 
as  though   the  whole   conclusion   rested   on  that  fact.      If 
the  fact  is  not  so  proven,  it  should  be    rejected  from  con- 
sideration altogether.    Tested  by  these  rules,  the  only  facts 
we  have  thus  far  seen  satisfactorily  proven,  and  by  lawful 
evidence  and  beyond  a    reasonable  doubt,  are   that    there 
was  a  meeting  at   the  Haymarket,  which   was  extremely 
peaceable,  and  that  some  of  the   defendants    were  there. 
The  subjects    before   this    meeting    were   discussed  as   a 
whole  in  not  an  intemperate  manner.      A  storm  cloud  arose 
and  a  majority  of  the   meeting,   which  was  small,  disinte- 
grated to  Zepf  s  Hall.    In  this  condition  the  police  appeared 
and  ordered  its  dispersion.      Immediately  upon  this  order 
the  bomb  was  thrown  by  an  unknown  person.    The  aiding 


54 

of  this  person  in  the  throvvini^  of  that  bomb  is  the  very 
gravamen  of  this  offense.  It  is  the  corfiis  delicti  as  to 
these  defendants,  and  in  I'eference  to  such  corpus  delicti 
the  case  stands  before  your  Honors  naked  and  bare  of 
any  evidence  whatsoever. 


VI. 

FISCHER       AND       ENGEL. 

Inculpatory  Evidence. 
I. 
The  Meeting  at  54  West  Lake  street  on  the 

NIGHT    OF    the    3D    OF    MaY,    1886. 

Gottfried  Waller,  Bernhard  Schrade,  Gustav  Lehmann 
and  Greif,  the  proprietor  of  the  hall,  were  witnesses  for 
the  state  as  to  what  occurred  at  that  meeting. 

Gottfried  Waller  says  (A.,  4;  I,  152):  He  went  to 
the  meeting  pursuant  to  the  following  advertisement  pub- 
lished in  the  Fackel,  the  Sunday  edition  of  the  Arbeiter 
Zeitung,  of  May  2,  1882:  "  Why— come  Monday  night," 
which  meant  a  call  for  the  sections  of  different  trades 
unions  to  meet  at  Greif's  Hall,  54  West  Lake.  He  arrived 
at  8  p.  M.,  and  the  hall  was  full  of  workingmen.  The  meet- 
ing advertised  was  therefore  held  in  the  basement.  Waller 
called  the  meeting  to  order  at  half-past  8,  seventy  or  eighty 
being  present.  Schrade,  Lehmann  and  Greif  say  not 
more  than  thirty  or  forty  were  present.  They  talked 
about  six  men  killed  at  McCormick's.  There  were 
present  circulars  headed  "Revenge."       En  gel   stated   a 


55 

resolution  had  been  passed  at  a  prior  meeting,  north-west 
side,  and  it  was  resolved  that  in  case  of  a  the 

word  "  Ruhe  "  should  be  published  under  the  head  "  Brief- 
kasten  "  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitunir;  it  should  be  a  sig'nal  for 
the  different  trades  unions  to  meet.  The  north-west 
side  group  had  determined  on  Wicker  Park  as  a  place 
for  meeting.  A  committee  should  observe  movements  in 
the  city,  and  if  a  conflict  should  occur  committee 
should  report  to  said  trades  unions,  who  should  storm 
police  stations  by  throwing  a  bomb  and  shoot  down  any- 
thing that  came  in  their  way.  Police  station  on  North 
avenue  was  referred  to.  Witness  then  sugfjjested  work- 
ingmen's  meeting  to  be  called  Tuesday  morning  on 
Market  square.  Fischer  said  that  would  be  a  mouse-trap 
and  the  meeting  should  be  held  in  the  Haymarket  in  the 
evening;  it  was  then  resolved  the  meeting  should  be  held 
at  8  p.  M.  at  Haymarket.  The  purpose  of  the  meeting 
was  to  cheer  up  workingmen  so  that  they  should  be 
prepared  in  case  conflict  should  happen. 

Fischer  went  away  to  order  handbills,  but  came  back 
saying  the  printing  establishment  was  closed.  It  was  said 
armed  men  should  not  participate  in  the  Haymarket  meet- 
ing. What  was  said,  if  anything,  as  to  what  should  be 
done  in  case  the  police  should  attempt  to  disperse  the  Hay- 
market meeting?  Answer.  There  was  nothing  said  about 
the  Haymarket;  there  was  nothing  expected  that  the  po- 
lice should  get  to  the  Haymarket.  There  were  present 
representatives  from  west,  north  and  south  side  groups. 
A  committee  composed  of  from  one  or  two  of  each  group 
was  to  be  sent  to  the  Haymarket.  This  committee  was 
to  ob.serve  not  only  the  movement  at  the  Haymarket,  but 
in  differcmt  parts  of  the  city.  He  only  knew  one  member 
of  the  proposed  committee — Kraemer.      If  a  conflict  hap- 


56 

pened  in  daytime  the  committee  was  to  publish  the  word 
"  RuHE."  If  it  happened  at  night  they  were  to  report  to 
members  personally  at  their  homes.  He  did  not  under- 
stand on  the  4th  of  May  why  the  word  "  Ruhe  "  was  pub- 
lished; it  was  to  be  inserted  only  in  the  event  that  a  revo- 
lution had  broken  out.  Fischer  first  mentioned  the  word 
"  Ruhe."  Schnaubelt  was  present  at  the  Lake  street 
meeting,  and  said  the  resolution  adopted  should  be  com- 
municated to  members  of  the  organization  in  other  locali- 
ties, so  that  movements  should  commence  in  other  places 
also.  The  plan  of  operations  introduced  at  54  Lake  street, 
by  Engel,  was  a  plan  which  Engel  had  proposed  at  a 
meeting  of  the  north-west  side  group  on  Sunday  morning, 
May  2d,  at  the  meeting  on  Emma  street,  at  which  meet- 
ing both  Fischer  and  Engel  were  present.  On  cross-ex- 
amination he  said,  at  the  meeting  at  Emma  street  and 
Greif's  hall  Mr.  Engel  stated  that  the  plan  was  to  be  fol- 
lowed only  in  the  event  of   a  police  attack,  a.'Td  that 

THE  WORKINGMEN  SHOULD  ONLY  DEFEND  THEMSELVES  IF 

THUS  ATTACKED  BY  THE  POLICE.  He  repeated  positively 
that  nothing  was  said  as  to  any  action  at  the  Hay  market; 
they  were  not  to  do  anything  at  the  Haymarket  meeting. 
The  plan  was  they  were  not  to  be  present  there  at  all; 
they  did  not  think  the  police  would  come  to  the  Hay- 
market. 

No  preparations  were  made  for  meeting  any  police  at- 
tack there,  on  the  night  of  May  4th;  witness  was  with 
Fischer  walking  about  the  streets,  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Haymarket,  and  then  went  to  a  meeting  of  the  furniture 
workers,  at  Zepf's  Hall,  and  was  there  when  bomb  ex- 
ploded. Fischer  and  himself  walked  together  to  Des- 
plaines  station;  police  were  mounting  patrol  wagons,  and 
witness  said:  I   suppose  they  are   getting    ready   to   drive 


.57 

out  to  McCormick's,  so  that  they  might  be  there  early  in 
the  morning.  Fischer  assented;  witness  stated  the  prin- 
cipal purpose  of  the  Haymarket  meeting  was  to  protest 
against  action  of  police  at  the  riot  at  McCormick's  factory. 
While  he  was  with  Fischer  at  Havmarket  nothing  was 
said  about  preparations  to  meet  an  attack  by  the  police. 
Witness  admitted  having  received  sums  of  money  from 
Captain  Schaack. 

Bernard  Schrade  (A.,  9  to  12)  reached  the  meeting 
at  54  Lake  street,  in  the  basement,  after  9  o'clock. 
Waller  was  presiding,  and  explained  what  had  been 
spoken  prior  to  his  coming.  Waller  said  so  many  men  had 
been  shot  at  McCormick's  by  the  police,  that  a  mass-meet- 
ing was  to  be  held  at  Haymarket,  and  they  should  be  pre- 
pared in  case  police  should  attack  them.  Circulars  headed 
"Revenge,"  were  distributed;  he  was  present  at  Emma 
street  meeting  Sunday  previous.  It  was  suggested  there 
might  be  trouble  after  May  ist,  in  which  event  they  were 
to  help  one  another.  The  north-west  side  group  should 
meet  at  Wicker  Park  in  the  event  of  a  police  attack,  and 
defend  themselves  as  well  as  they  could;  nothing  was  said 
about  dynamite,  or  the  word  "  stuff."  It  was  suggested, 
in  case  of  an  outbreak,  to  cripple  effectiveness  of  firemen, 
by  cutting  the  hose;  he  heard  nothing  about  the  word 
"  Ruhe;  "  nothing  was  said  at  any  of  the  meetings  about 
dynamite  or  bombs,  and  nothing  was  said  about  a  meet- 
ing at  any  particular  time  to  throw  bombs.  It  was  not 
agreed  to  throw  bombs  at  the  Ha3'market  meeting. 
He  was  at  the  meeting;  he  did  not  anticipate  any  trouble 
there,  and  left  Haymarket  on  account  of  the  approaching 
storm, 

Thomas  Greif,  proprietor  of  the  hall:  On  Monday 
evening,  May  3d,  a  man  rented  the  basement  for  a  meet- 


58 

ing;  told   Greif  if  "Y"  folks   come    tell   them   to   come 
downstairs;  twenty-five  or  thirty  men  present. 

Gustav  Lehmann's  evidence  (A.,  73),  does  not  reveal 
anything  material. 

We  claim: 

(i.j  The  evidence  of  this  conspiracy  implicates  but 
two  of  the  defendants,  to  wit:   Fischer  and  Engel. 

(2.)  The  conspiracy  formed  at  54  JLake  street  was  not 
for  the  throwing  of  a  bomb  or  for  the  performance  of  any 
other  unlawful  act  at  the  Haymarket  meeting,  and  there- 
fore, was  not  a  conspiracy  to  commit  the  act  charged  in 
this  indictment.  Neither  was  it  shown  that  the  bomb 
was  thrown  by  a  member  of  that  conspiracy. 

A  conspiracy  to  sustain  a  civil  action  for  damages  must 
be  declared  on  in  the  declaration.  The  same  conspiracy, 
and  no  other,  must  be  proved  upon  the  trial.  Just  as  a 
promissory  note  must  be  declared  on  in  the  declaration 
and  the  same  note  described  and  not  another  must  be 
offered  in  evidence.  This  principle  is  held  even  with  more 
strictness  in  criminal  proceedure.  The  constitution  of 
1870  (Sec.  8,  Bill  of  Rights),  provides  that  no  person 
shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  criminal  offense  unless  on  an 
indictment  of  a  grand  jur}',  '■'-  '■'•  "  and  Sec.  9  pro- 
vides that:  "In  all  criminal  prosecutions  the  accused  shall 
"  have  the  right  "  *  *  "  to  demand  the  nature  or 
"  cause  of  the  accusation."  What  constitutes  an  indict- 
ment as  to  dehniteness  and  legal  precision  is  left  to  the 
requirements  of  the  common  law  and  the  decision  of  the 
courts,  and  the  substance  of  these  are  that  even  greater 
precision  and  detlniteness  is  required  than  in  civil  cases, 
and  the  right  of  amendment  or  change  of  these  charijes 
does  not  exist. 

(3.)      This  testimony  was  objected  to  on  behalf  of    the 


59 

six  defendants  not  present   at   said  meeting.      (B.,  .) 

This  testimony  was  also  objected  to,  because  not  rela- 
tive to  the  issue  tried.  This  conspiracy  was  foreign  to  the 
issue.  The  charge  was  the  throwing  of  a  bomb  at  the 
Ha^-market,  and  aiding  and  abetting  that  thrower;  this 
agreement  was  as  foreign  to  that  as  is  a  charge  of 
larceny  and  proof  of  an  agreement  to  commit  forgery. 
The    motion    was    overruled,    and     an    exception.       (A., 

41.  57-) 

(4.)  This  testimony'  being  received,  a  motion  was 
made  on  behalf  of  the  six  not  present  to  exclude  it,  but 
this  was  refused,  the  court  not  even  limiting  it  to  the  two 
persons  who  were  present.      (A.,  Si,  106.) 

Exculpalory  Evidence  as  to  EiigeJ. 

There  is  no  pretense  that  Engel  was  present  at  the 
Haymarket  meeting,  although  there  is  evidence  that  he 
was  in  that  vicinit}-  during  the  first  part  of  it. 

Waller  testifies  (A.,  6,  173)  that  after  the  bomb  was 
exploded  and  after  he  left  Zepf's  Hall  he  went  to  Engel's 
home  where  he  found  him,  with  some  friends,  drinking 
beer.  Waller  told  what  had  occurred  at  the  Haymarket. 
Waller  then  suggested  the  people  there  should  go  home. 
Engel  assented  to  this;  all  went  home  and  nothing  else 
happened. 

(2.)  August  Kruger  (A.  243):  He  remained  at  Hay- 
market until  about  10  o'clock  and  then  went  to  Engel's 
house,  reaching  it  a  quartei'-past  10.  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Engel  were  there  and  witness  drank  a  pint  of  beer,  later 
Waller  came  in  and  said  he  came  from  Haymarket,  that 
300  men  had  been  shot  there  by  the  police,  and  "  we  ought 
"  to  go  down  there  and  do  something."  Engel  replied 
tJiat   zvhoever  threiv  that   bomb  did  a  foolish  thin<r;  it  zuas 


6o 

nonsense,  and  he  did  not  sympathize  zaith  such  butchery.  He 
told  Waller  he  had  better  go  home  as  quick  as  he  could, 
he  said  policemen  were  just  as  good  as  anybody  else,  that 
the  revolution  must  grow  out  of  the  people  and  the  police 
and  militia  would  throw  away  their  arms  and  go  with  the 
people. 

VII. 
Louis  Lingg. 

Inculpatory  Evidence. 

(I.)     William  Seliger,  (A.,  44,  37): 

Seliger  testifies  (A.,  44,  37,  ct  seg.)  substantially  as 
follows:  "  On  Tuesday  I  rose  at  half-past  7,  and 
"  after  I  got  up  Lingg  came.  I  had  previously  told  him 
"  that  I  wanted  those  things  (bomb  and  bomb  material) 
"  removed  from  my  dwelling.  He  told  me  to  work  dili- 
"  gently  at  those  bombs  and  they  would  be  taken  away 
"  that  day.  I  took  some  coffee  and  after  a  time  1  worked 
"  at  some  shells — at  some  loaded  shells.  I  drilled  holes 
"  through  which  the  bolt  went,  a  shell  like  this  (indicat- 
"  ing  shell  introduced  in  evidence).  I  worked  on  the 
"  shells  half  an  hour.  Lingg  went  to  the  west  side  to  a 
'  meeting;  got  back  piobabh'  after  i  o'clock.  He  said 
"  I  didn't  do  much;  I  ought  to  have  worked  more  dili- 
"  gently.  I  said:  '  I  haven't  any  pleasure  at  the  work.' 
"  Lingg  said:  'Well  we  will  have  to  work  very  dili- 
"  gently  this  afternoon.'  During  the  afternoon  I  did  dif- 
"  ferent  work  at  the  shells.  In  the  morning  I  had  a  con- 
"  versation  about  the  bolls.  He  told  me  he  had  not 
"  enough  of  them.  He  gave  me  one  and  told  me  to  go 
"  to  Clybourne  avenue  and  get  some  that  he  had   already 


6i 

"  spoken  to  the  man  about.  I  got  about  fifty.  I  worked 
"  at  the  bombs  during  the  whole  of  the  afternoon,  at  dif- 
"  ferent  times.  Huebner,  Munsenberg  and  Heuman 
"  were  helping.  I  worked  in  the  front  room,  also  in 
"  Lingg's  room  and  the  rear  room.  Lingg  first  worked 
"  at  gas  or  water  pipes,  such  as  these  (indicating"). 
"  There  were  probably  thirty  or  forty  or  fifty  bombs 
"  made  that  afternoon.  The  round  bombs  had  been 
"  cast  before  b}'  Lingg,  in  the  rear  room  on  my 
"  stove,  probably  six  weeks  previous  to  the  4th  of  May^ 
"  The  first  bomb  I  ever  saw  was  in  Lingg's  room;  that 
"  was  still  before  that;  at  that  time  he  told  me  he  was 
"  going  to  make  bombs;  I  saw  dynamite  for  the  first 
"  time  in  Lingg's  room,  about  five  or  six  weeks  previous 
"  to  the  4th  of  May;  Lingg  said  every  workingman 
"  should  get  some  dynamite,  that  there  should  be  con- 
"  siderable  agitation;  that  every  workingman  should  learn 
"  to  handle  these  thin<2;s;  durin<»;  that  Tuesdav  afternoon 
"  Lingg  said  those  bombs  were  going  to  be  good  fodder 
"  for  the  capitalists,  and  the  police,  when  they  came  to 
"  protect  the  capitalists;  nothing  was  said  about  when 
"  they  wanted  the  bombs  completed  or  ready;  I  only  told 
"  him  that  I  wanted  these  things  out  of  my  room;  there 
"  was  only  a  remark  that  they  were  to  be  used  that 
"  evening,  but  nothing  positive  as  to  time.  I  left  the 
",  house  at  half-past  8  that  evening.  Huebner  was  at  the 
"  house  probably  from  4  to  6  o'clock;  I  did  not  see  what 
"  he  did;  he  worked  in  the  front  room  with  Lingg;  I  was 
"in  Lingg's  room;  Munsenberg  was  there  as  long  as 
"  Huebner;  Tiiielen  was  there  half  an  hour — quite  that; 
"  I  did  not  see  what  he  was  doing.  The  Lehmanns  were 
"  at  my  house  for  a  little  while.  I  did  not  see  what  thev 
"  were  doing;  they  were  in   the    front    room.      Heumann 


62 

^'  also  worked  at  the  bombs.  I  left  that  house  in  the 
'  evening  with  Lining.  We  had  a  little  trunk  with 
'  bombs  in.  The  trunk  was  probably  two  feet  long,  one 
'foot  high  and  one  foot  wide.  It  was  covered  with 
'  coarse  linen.  There  were  round  and  pipe  bombs  in  it. 
'They  were  loaded  with  dynamite  and  caps  lixed  to 
'  them.  I  don't  know  how  many  there  were.  The 
'  trunk  might  have  weighed  from  thirty  to  fifty  pounds. 
'  We  pulled  a  stick,  which  Lingg  had  broken, 
'  through  the  handle.  That  is  the  wa}^  we 
'  carried  the  trunk,  which  was  taken  to  Neff's  Hall, 
'  58  Clybourn  avenue.  On  the  way  to  Nefi's  Hall, 
'  Munsenberg  met  us.  We  took  the  package  into  the 
'  building,  and  through  the  saloon  on  the  side  into  the 
'  hallway  without,  leading  to  the  rear.  After  the  bombs 
'  were  put  down  in  the  passage  wav;  there  were  different 
'ones  there,  three  or  four,  who  took  bombs  out  for  them- 
'  selves.  I  took  two  pipe  bombs  myself.  Carried  them 
'in  my  pocket.  We  went  away  from  Neff's  Hall  and 
'left  that  package  in  the  passage.  The  hall  back  of 
'  Nefl"'s  Hall  is  known  under  the  name  of  the  '  Shanty  of 
'  the  Communists.'  Different  socialistic  and  anarchistic 
'  organizations  met  there.  The  north  side  group  met  there. 
'I  heard  that  the  Saxon  Bund  met  there.  I  don't  know 
'any  others  that  met  there.  When  I  left  Neff's  Hall 
'  Thielen  and  Gustav  L,ehmann  were  with  me.  Later, 
'  two  larire  men  of  the  Lehr  und  Wehr  V^erein  came  to 
'us;  I  believe  they  all  had  bombs.  We  went  on  to  Cly- 
'  bourne  avenue,  north,  toward  Lincoln  avenue,  to  the 
'  Larrabee  street  station,  where  we  hahed.  Lingg  and 
'  myself  halted  there.  I  don't  know  what  had  become  of 
'  the  others.  Some  went  ahead  of  us.  Lingg  and  I  had 
'  a  conversation,  that  there  should  be  a  disturbance  every- 


63 

"  where  on  the  north  side,  and  keep  the  poHce  from  going 
"  over  on  the  west  side.      In   front  of  the  Larrabee  street 
"  station   Lingg  said   it    might  be  a  beautiful  thing  if   we 
"  would  walk   ov^er  and    throw   one   or   two    bombs    into 
"  the  station.      There  were  two   policemen  sitting  in  front 
"  of  the  station,  and   Lingg  said   if  the   others  came  out 
"  these  two  could  not  do    much.      We  would  shoot  these 
"  two    down.       Then     we    went     from     there     north    to 
"  Lincoln     avenue     and      Larrabee     street,     where     we 
"  took  a    glass    of    beer.       Webster    avenue    station    is 
"  near    there.      After    we     left    the    saloon     we   went    a 
"  few  blocks  north,  then   turned  about  and  came  back  to 
"  North   avenue  and   Larrabee  street.      While   we  stood 
"  there   the    patrol   wagon   passed.       We   were  standing 
"  south  of  North  avenue  and  Larrabee  street.    Lingg  said 
"  that  he  was  going  to  throw  a  bomb;  that  was  the  best 
"  opportunity  to  throw  the  bomb,  and  I  said:     '  It  would 
"  not  have  any   purpose.'     Then   he   became    quite    wild, 
"  excited;  said  I  should  give  him  a  light.      I  was  smoking 
"  a  cigar  and  I  jumped  into  the   front  opening  before  a 
"  store  and  lighted  a  match,  making  as  if    I  intended  to 
"  light  a  cigar,  so  I  could  not  give  him  a  light.      When  I 
"  lighted  my  cigar  the    patrol    wagon    was  just    passing. 
"  Lingg  said  he  was  going  to  go  after  the   wagon  to  see 
"  what  had  happened,  saying  that  something  had  certainly 
"  happened    on    the   west    side,  some   trouble;  the  patrol 
"  wagon  was  completely  manned,  going  south  on   Larra- 
"  bee  street;  we  were   four   or   five   houses   distant   from 
"  the  station;  then  I  went  into  a  boarding  house  between 
"  Mohawk  and  Larrabee  streets  and  lighted  a  cigar;  then 
"  we  went  towards  home.      First  Lingg   wanted   to   wait 
"  until  the  patrol  wagon  would  come  back,  but  I    impor- 
"  tuned  him  to  go  home  with  me.      We  got  home   proba- 


64 

'  bly  shortly  before  ii,I  cannot  tell  exactly.  On  the 
'  way  home  Lingg  asked  me  whether  I  had  seen  a  no- 
'  tice  that  a  meeting  of  the  armed  men  should  be  held  on 
'  the  west  side;  I  said  I  had  seen  nothing;  Lingg 
'  wanted  to  go  out;  J  took  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung,  tore  it 
'  in  two  parts;  he  took  one  and  I  one;  thereupon  he  said: 
' '  Here  it  is!'  and  called  my  attention  to  the  word  Ruhe. 
'  This  paper,  this  here  (paper  marked  People's  Exhibit 
'  No.  4),  is  the  same  that  I  saw  in  my  house.  I  didn't 
'  know  the  meaning  of  the  work  Ruhe  until  the  time  I 
'  saw  it.  Lingg  said  there  was  to  have  been  a  meeting 
'  on  the  west  side  that  night,  and  he  was  going  to  go 
'  down  to  it — that  Ruhe  meant  that  everything  was  to  go 
'topsy-turvy;  that  there  was  to  be  trouble;  he  said  that 
<  a  meeting  had  been  held  at  which  it  was  determined  that 
'  the  word  Ruhe  should  go  into  the  paper,  when  all  the 
'  armed  men  should  appear  at  5^1  West  Lake  street;  that 
'  there  would  be  trouble.  After  that  talk  we  went 
'  away;  Lingg  wanted  to  go  to  the  west  side,  and  I 
'  talked  with  him  to  go  with  me  to  58  Clybourn  avenue. 
'  Lingg  and  I  went  there;  there  were  several  persons 
'  present  at  Neff's  Hall.  I  did  not  speak  with  Lingg 
'  at  Neff's  Hall;  a  certain  Hermann  said  to  him  in  an 
'  energetic  tone  of  voice:  '  You  are  the  fault  of  all  of  it.' 
'  I  did  not  hear  what  Lingg  said  to  that;  they  spoke  in  a 
'  subdued  tone;  somebody  said  a  bomb  had  fallen  which 
'  liad  killed  many  and  wounded  many;  I  did  not  hear 
'  what  Lingg  said  to  that.  On  the  way  home  Lingg  said 
'  that  he  was  even  now  scolded,  chided  for  the  work  he  had 
'  done;  we  got  home  shortly  after  12.  We  laid  the  bombs 
^  of}'  on  our  way  on  Sigel  street,  between  Sedgwick  and 
'  Hurlbut,  under  an  elevated  sidewalk.  I  laid  two  pipe 
'  bombs  there;  I  saw  Lingg  put  some  bombs  there;  I 
'  don't  know  what  kind." 


65 

On  cross-examination  this  witness  admitted  that  he  had 
been  under  arrest,  had  himself  been  indicted  for  murder  of 
the  policeman  in  this  case,  that  he  had  been  furnished 
money  from  time  to  time  by  Capt.  Schaack,  and  that  he  had 
from  time  to  time,  at  the  instance  of  the  otiicers,  signed  dif- 
ferent vvritten  statements  as  to  the  occurrences  testified  to; 
statements  that  differed  from  one  another,  but  had  finally 
made  substantially  the  same  statemeui  as  he  had  testified 
to.  He  also  stated  that  Schaack  had,  from  time  to  time, 
paid  his  wife  money,  since  his  arrest,  and  stated  (A.,  50) 
that  the  agreement  on  Tuesday  afternoon  was  that  they 
were  to  go  that  evening  with  the  bombs  thev  were 
manufacturing  to  Clybourn  avenue;  that  there  was  no 
agreement  that  the  bombs  were  to  be  taken  anywhere 
else,  nor  what  was  to  be  done  with  them  after  the}' 
were  taken  there;  that  he  had  never  heard  of  any  agree- 
ment that  any  of  the  bombs  manufactured  on  May  4th 
were  to  be  taken  by  anybody  to  the  Hay  market;  that 
the}'  were  not  on  that  occasion  making  bombs  to  take  to 
the  Haymarket  and  destroy  the  police;  they  were  to  he 
taken  to  CK'bourn  avenue  that  evening,  and  the  witness 
stated  that  he  could  not  say  that  a  single  bomb  was  made 
for  use  at  the  Haymarket  meeting;  that  in  point  of  fact 
they  were  made  everywhere  to  be  used  against  the  capi- 
talists and  the  police,  and  that  he  could  not  say  who  had 
the  bomb  at  the  Haymarket  on  the  night  of  May  4th, 
and  did  not  know  anybody  who  was  expected  to  be  at 
the  Haymarket. 

Mrs.  Seliger's  testimony  (A.,  51-53)  substantially  cor- 
roborates the  testimony  of  her  husband  as  to  the  fact  that 
Lingg  was  making  bombs,  and  as  to  the  fact  that  the 
bomb-making  was  carried  on  at  her  house  on  the  4th  day 
of  May,  1886. 


66 

The  very  making  of  dynamite  bombs  ought  to  be 
made  a  criminal  offense.  The  trouble  with  this  question 
is  that  it  is  not. 

The  Chicago  Tribune  strikes  the  questions  arising  in 
this  case  aright  in  an  article  published  the  other  da}'.  It 
says: 

"  Mr.  Merritt,  the  Democratic  leader  of  the  house  at 
"  Springfield,  has  introduced  a  bill  to  define  with  greater 
"  clearness  and  precision  the  crime  of  unlawful  conspiracy 
"  and  provide  the  same  punishment  for  accessories  and  ad- 
"  visers  as  for  principals  in  the  commission  of  offenses 
"  against  public  order  and  security.  The  bill  is  carefully 
"  drawn,  and  it  should  receive  overwhelming  support  from 
"  both  parties.     Its  provisions  are  summarized  as  follows: 

"  It  provides  that  any  person  who  shall  by  speaking  to 
"  any  public  or  private  assemblage  of  people,  or  by 
"  writing,  printing,  or  publishing  anything,  incite  local 
"  revolution  or  the  overthrow  or  destruction  of  the  exist- 
"  ing  order  of  society,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  con- 
"  spiracy,  and  if,  as  a  result  of  such  speeches  or  writings, 
"  human  life  is  taken,  or  person  or  property  is  injured,  the 
"  person  so  speaking  or  writing  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of 
"  having  conspired  with  the  person  or  persons  who 
"  actually  committed  the  act  and  be  treated,  as  a  principal 
"  in  the  perpetration  of  the  same.*' 

This  law  was  probably  framed  to  meet  this  very  case, 
but  the  question  for  this  court  is,  can  you  hang  a  man  be- 
fore the  law  is  passed.  The  charge  in  this  case  is  that 
Lingg  aided  and  abetted  an  unknown  person  who  threw  the 
bomb  and  killed  ollicer  Degan— just  that  and  nothing  more. 
Does  the  manufacture  of  gunpowder  or  of  bullets,  or  of 
lead  or  of  pistols,  make  a  partv  farticcps  cn')niiiis  with 
whoever  uses  these  as  the   means  of   murder.^     It  ma\-  be 


67 

said   if   the    articles   had    never    been    made,  the    murder 
would  never  have  been  committed. 

If  Lingg"  agreed  with  any  one  that  he  would  make  the 
bomb  and  any  other  person  should  throw  it,  and  either 
Lingg  himself  or  such  other  person  did  throw  it,  he 
would  be  guilty  under  this  indictment.  If  he  made  these 
bombs  under  a  wild  and  foolish  but  indehnite  craze,  and 
without  having  any  definite  or  formed  purpose,  then 
he  is  not  guilt}'  under  this  indictment,  notwithstanding 
some  other  person  may  have  got  hold  of  one  of  these  very 
bombs  and  without  Lingg's  knowledge  or  aid,  may  have 
thrown  it  and  killed  Officer  Degan.  The  aiding  and 
abetting  which  the  law  contemplates,  and  which  is  essen- 
tial to  legal  guilt,  is  not  in  furnishing  the  land  upon 
which  one  man  kills  another,  or  the  building  in  which  it 
is  done,  or  making  the  powder  or  the  bullet  or  the  pistol 
with  which  it  is  done.  It  must  be  a  guilty  participa- 
tion in  the  crime  itself.  Which  way  is  this?  The  proof 
does  not  show  which  way  it  is.  A  verdict  must  be 
sustained  by  evidence.  This  case  presents  simply  sus- 
picion. The  world  has  advanced  too  far,  society  is  edu- 
cated too  vvell,  to  hang  a  man  because  it  is  scared  or  be- 
cause it  does  not  know  what  the  fact  is.  Let  us  have  the 
law  passed  and  perhaps  enlarged  in  its  scope,  before  we 
hang  any  one. 


68 


Illegal  Evidence. 

These  defendants  were  convicted  in  the  main  by  the 
introduction  of  illegal  evidence. 

I. 

Most's  Book. 

This  book  was  written  and  published  in  German  in  the 
city  of  New  York  about  three  years  before  the  Hay- 
market  meeting.  Its  delectable  teachings  were  how  to 
make  bombs  in  the  most  approved  style;  how  to  poison 
daggers  so  that  the  slightest  scratch  produced  the  most 
excruciating  convulsions  and  most  painful  death.  (Vol. 
of  Exhibits  32  and  Vol.  of  Exhibits  A.) 

It  was  never  translated  into  English  until  done  by  the 
prosecution  in  this  case.  Two  of  the  plaintiffs  in  error, 
Fie^den  and  Parsons,  cannot  read  German  (A.,  269;  M, 
320),  and  consequently  never  heard  the  contents  of  this 
book,  by  which,  more  largely  than  from  any  other  fact, 
they  were  convicted  of  murder,  until  the  trial,  when  it 
was  paraded  before  the  jury  and  its  most  diabolical  sen- 
tences and  suggestions  were  read  in  evidence  and  argu- 
ment. The  writer  of  this  book  did  not  know  the  Hay- 
market  meeting  would  ever  take  place,  and  these  defend- 
ants never  had  any  connection  with  the  book  such  as  would 
make  it  competent  evidence,  direct  or  remote.  It  could 
be  introduced  to  condemn  this  very  court  just  as  lawfully 
and  with  as  much  foundation  as  it  was  introduced  against 
these  defendants. 

(i.)      Fricke    testified    that   he  saw  the  book     in    the 


6g 

library  of  the  Inteniatioiial  Working  people's  Association^ 
which  is  in  the  same  building;  but  not  in  the  same  room  as 
that  in  zvhich  the  Arbeiter  Zeitnng'  zuas  published.  (A., 
41;  T,  474.) 

(2.)  HusBERGER,  the  librarian,  sold  some  copies  of 
it  at  picnics  and  mass-meetings,  at  which  with  a 
crowd  Spies,  Parsons  and  Fielden,  and  sometimes  Neebe 
and  sometimes  Schwab  and  perhaps  Fisher  were  pres- 
ent. (A.,  41;  T,  4zj5-6.j  This  witness  admitted  that 
none  of  the  defendants  had  anything  to  do  with  the  selling 
of  the  book,  and,  so  far  as  witness  knew,  never  saw  the 
book  or  ever  read  it.      (A.,  42;  T,  485-^6.) 

(3.)  Seliger  saw  the  book  at  a  meeting  on  the  north 
side  sold  by  Hueber,  the  librarian.      (A.,  49;  T,  532.) 

There  was  also  in  the  x\rbeiter  Zeitung  an  advertise- 
ment as  follows:  "  Most's  Revolutionary  Warfare  has 
"  arrived  and  can  be  had  of  the  librarian,  at  ten  cents  a 
"  copy." 

The  Arbeiter  Zeitung  was  a  corporation,  incorporated 
under  the  general  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  had  stock- 
holders, directors  and  officers,  but  these  defendants  had 
no  stock  and  were  not  officers,  and  had  no  voice  in  its 
direction.  Two  of  the  defendants  had  been  hired  to  edit  it, 
Spies  at  $18  per  week,  and  Parsons  at  $8  per  week. 

(4.)  Officer  BoNFiELD  swore  that  Fischer  admitted 
having  read  about  fulminating  caps  in  Most's  book.  (A., 
28;  T,  354.) 

(5.)  Capt.  ScHAACK  swore  that  Lingg  learned  to 
make  bombs  from  Most's  book. 

The  whole  of  this  book  was  introduced  in  evidence 
against  all    the    defendants    and   over    the    objections    of 


70 

such  defendants.  It  is  impossible  to  imagine  anything 
more  incompetent  and  unlawful  or  more  prejudicial. 
From  the  time  of  its  introduction  it  was  waved  like 
"a  bloody  shirt"  before  the  jury,  and  with  this  the 
imagination  of  the  prosecution  knew  no  bounds  in  de- 
nunciation, and  by  it,  and  by  the  book  in  evidence,  the 
attorneys  for  the  state  aroused  and  made  uncontrollable 
the  passions  and  prejudices  of  the  jur)'.  And  yet  most 
plainly,  in  every  regard,  this  book  was  simply  res  inter 
alios  acta. 

It  was  written  and  published  three  years  before,  in 
a  distant  city,  by  a  stranger.  One  man.  of  the  eight  on 
trial  had  read  in  it  of  fulminating  caps;  one  man  had  from 
it  learned  to  make  bombs.  Several  were  Germans  and 
the  book  existed  in  German.  Two  of  the  men  had  been 
employed  by  a  corporation  to  edit  a  paper  at  a  tlxed  price 
per  week.  That  paper  contained  a  paid  advertisement 
for  sale  of  the  book  elsewhere.  It  was  found  in  the  same 
building,  but  in  another  room  to  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung, 
but  the  crowning  fact  of  its  admissibility  lies  in  the  cir- 
cumstance that  several  of  the  defendants  ate  cheese  and 
drank  lager  at  the  same  mass-meeting  or  picnic  where 
the  industrious  peddler  was  plying  his  vocation  with  this 
book.  If  thus  disastrous  to  those  defendants  for  drinking 
beer  and  eating  cheese,  what  would  become  of  the  poor, 
lorn  peddler  himself,  if  he  had  been  gathered  in  the  drag- 
net of   this  prosecution? 


71 

II. 

Bloody  Clothes. 

The  prosecution  were  permitted  to  introduce  over  the 
objection  of  the  defendants  all  the  bloody  clothes  it  could 
find  avovvedl}^  worn  by  officers  other  than  Mathias  J. 
Degan.  These  blood-stained  garments  were  held  up  be- 
fore the  jury — and  holes  made  in  them  by  pieces  of  shell 
were  exhibited.  This  was  to  arouse  in  the  jury  a  proper 
scent  for  blood,  and  not  because  they  were  in  any  way 
pertinent. 

III. 

Letter  of  Most  to  Spies. 

Spies  was  put  on  the  stand  to  deny  his  connection  with 
the  bomb-throwing,  as  testified  by  Thompson  {ante^ 
page  15).  His  examination  in  chief  was  limited  to  that 
inculpatory  evidence.  On  cross-examination  he  was  asked 
to  identify  a  certain  letter  and  postal  card  from  Johann 
Most,  and  upon  such  identification  it  was  introduced  in 
evidence. 

The  letter  was  of  ambiguous  and  doubtful  import,  and 
as  to  whether  a  person  named  was  trustworth}-.  Most 
proposed  to  send  some  of  "  his  nicd/'c/'nc  "  to  the  Hocking 
Valley,  where  labor  troubles  then  existed.  The  postal 
followed  a  day  or  so  afterwards,  and  is  wholly  indefinite. 

These  were  written  in  1884,  '^"^  ^^'^'^  ^^^^  '•''  Spies' 
drawer  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung-  since  their  dates.  The 
prosecution  ransacked  this  building  the  next  day  after 
the    Haymarket    meeting,    without    search    warrant,  and 


72 

found  them.  Spies  swore  he  had  no  recollection  of 
having  received  or  having  read  them.  He  recognized 
the  handwriting  of  Most,  and  he  probably  received  them, 
as  they  were  addressed  to  him;  he  did  not  remember  of 
having  answered  either  of  them;  he  never  carried  on  any 
correspondence  with  Most  and  gave  no  directions  for  the 
shipment  of  the  "  medicine!''' 

This  evidence  was  unlawful  evidence,  because  : 

(i.)  This  testimony  was  the  result  of  the  violation  of 
the  laws  of  the  examination  of  a  witness. 

(2.)  It  was  obtained  by  an  unreasonable  search,  and 
the  defendant  by  the  wrongful  act  of  the  officers  and  the 
court  was  forced  to  give  evidence  against  himself. 

(3.)  Because  the  act  was  the  act  of  a  stranger. 
Any  person  is  liable  to  receive  any  sort  of  a  letter, 
but  such  letter  becomes  criminative  of  him  only  upon 
the  prosecution  showing  some  act  done  by  the  defeiid- 
ant  which  connects  him  with  the  writing  of  the  letter. 
These  were  most  clearly  not  competent  evidence  against 
the  seven  other  defendants,  against  whom  it  was  also  intro- 
duced. This  court,  in  GiJ'ord  v.  Tiie  People,  has  held  upon 
the  subject  of  admissibility  such  documents  as  follows,  87 
111.,  210,  214:  //  zuas  never  competent  to  introduce  in  evi- 
dence ao-ainst  a  parly  an  .nnanszuered  letter  addressed  to 
him,  even  zuhen  found  among-  his  effects  and  in  his  pos- 
session, zvithont  evidence  tJiat  the  letter  had  been  acted 
npon  by  the  party  to  whom  it  is  addressed. 

Wharton  Crim.  Law,  9th  Ed.,  §§644,682. 
Com.  V.  Edgcrly,  10  Allen,  187. 

Astothe  manner  of  obtaining  this  letter  is  the  following: 

Officer  Jones  (A.,  62,  i;  J,  90):  He  was  present 
on  the  5th  of   May,  at   the  Arbeiier   Zeitung   office,  when 


73 

a  locksmith  opened  different  drawers  in  different  offices, 
and  the  desk  in  the  corner  of  the  office  on  the  second  floor; 
in  the  drawer  of  the  desk  he  found  among  other  things  a 
number  of  letters  directed  to  Spies.      (A.,  63;  I,  106.) 

Officer  Flynn  was  with  Officer  Jones  at  the  time 
he  searched  the  desk  of  Spies.  He  says  (Abst.,  65): 
"  We  found  this  box  of  letters;  they  were  all  found  in 
"  Spies'  drawer.  /  took  the  letters,  -put  them  into  this 
«  box,  carried  them  to  the  station  and  delivered  them  to 
"  Mr.  Fnrtlimann,  assistant  state's  attorney.'''' 

Spies  had  been  put  on  the  stand  for  a  specific    purpose. 
Thompson  had  sworn  that  Spies  and  Schwab  were  ramb- 
ling about  in  the  crowd,  talking,  as  he  followed   them,  of 
pistols  and  police,  and  saying,  "  You  think  one  is  enough: 
"don't    you    think    we    had    better   go    and    get    more;" 
when   Schwab   was   on   his    road    to   Deering,  and   when 
Spies   was    notoriously    on     the    speakers'    wagon,    Gil- 
mer   had    sworn  that   Spies  was  in  the  alley  and   actu- 
ally lighted  the  fuse  of  the  bomb,  when  he  was  in  fact,  in 
Zepf's  hah,  or  on  his  way  there.      Gilmer  had  also  sworn 
that  Fisher  was  with   the  group  when   he   was  in    Zepf's 
hall.      After  a  crowd  of   witnesses  in  denial  and  to  make 
assurance   doubly  sure.  Spies  was   put  on  the  stand  and 
was    made    a    witness    in    his    own   behalf,   simply    as  to 
these    matters   sworn  to  by  Thompson    and  Gilmer.      He 
did  not  even   swear   that   he    was   not  guilty  and   did  not 
aid  and  abet  whoever  threw  the   bomb.      Having   denied 
the   things  proven,   he   was   turned    over    to    the    State. 
It    stepped    outside     the    limits     of    the     examination-in- 
chief,    made   Spies   its   own    witness    as  to  this  new  mat- 
ter,   and   forced    him    to  give  testimony   against  himself. 
As  to  the  new   matter,  the  case    stands  as   though  Spies 
had  not  been  put  on  the  stand  in  his  own  behalf  at  all,  but 


74 

as  though  the  prosecution  had  called  him  from  the  dock  to 
the  witness-box  and  had  forced  him  to  answer  these  ques- 
tions. This  proceeding  was  in  violation  of  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States  and  of  this  state.  Again,  Spies  lived 
under  protection  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  this  state,  as  all  men  in  this  state  do,  in  reference  to 
unreasonable  searches  and  seizures.  The  constitution  of 
the  United  States,  article  4  of  the  amendments  (Starr  & 
Curtis'  Stat.,  36)  upon  these  two  subjects,  provides: 

"The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons, 
"houses,  papers  and  effects, against  unreasonable  searches 
"and  seizures,  shall  not  be  violated,  and  no  warrants  shall 
"  issue  but  upon  probable  cause,  supported  by  oath  or 
"  affirmation  and  particularly  describing  the  place  to  be 
"searched,  and  the  person  or  thing  to  be  seized." 

Article  5  of  the  amendments  provides: 
*      -*      *      Nor  shall  any  person   "  be  compelled   in  any 
"criminal  case  to  be  a  witness  against  himself."     *     *     * 

The  constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois  of  1818  (Starr 
&  Curtis'  Stat.,  Sees.  7  and  9,  p.  64)  in  substance,  copies 
and  adopts  the  two  foregoing  provisions  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.  The  same  two  provisions  are 
copied  into  and  re-adopted  by  the  constitution  of  iS^S. 
(Starr  &  Curtis,  89-90.)  The  exact  language  in  refer- 
ence to  unreasonable  seizures  is  also  adopted  in  the  con- 
stitution of  1870,  and  in  reference  to  compulsory  evidence 
the  provision  is  as  follows  (Starr  &  Curtis,  104): 

"  No  person  shall  be  compelled  in  any  criminal  case  to 
"  give  evidence  against  himself."     *      *      * 

The  Supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  the  highest 
tribunal  of  the  land,  and  whose  duly  is  especially  to 
inlei-pret  the  constitution  of  the  United  Slates,  in  the  case 


75 

of  Boyd  V.  U.  S.  (ii6  U.  S.,  6i6),  have  expressly  passed 
upon  these  questions,  and  have  defined  what  is  unreason- 
able search,  what  the  rights  of  the  defendants  under  such 
circumstances  are,  and  what  protection  the  constitution 
gives  a  party  whose  rights  are  thus  invaded,  and  how 
evidence  produced  by  un  reasonable  search  is  regarded. 
The  court,  after  citing  Entic  v.  Carringioii  (19  Howell's 
State  Trials,  p.  1,029),  uses  the  following  language: 

"  Breaking  into  a  house  and  opening  boxes  and  draw- 
"  ers  are  circumstances  of  aggravation;  but  any  forcible 
"  and  compulsory  extortion  of  a  man's  own  testimony,  or 
"  of  his  private  papers,  to  be  used  as  evidence  to  convict 
"  him  of  crime,  or  to  forfeit  his  goods,  are  within  the  con- 
"  demnation  of  that  judgment.  In  this  regard  the  fourth 
"  and  fifth  amendments  run  almost  into  each  other." 
*  *  *  *-  -*  *■ 

"  Any  compulsory  discovery  by  extorting  a  party's 
"  oath,  or  compelling  the  production  of  his  private  books 
"  or  papers,  to  convict  him  of  crime  or  to  forfeit  his  prop- 
"  erty,  is  contrar}^  to  the  principles  of  a  free  government. 
"It  is  abhorrent  to  the  instincts  of  an  Englishman. 
"  It  is  abhorrent  to  the  instincts  of  an  American.  It  may 
"  suit  the  purposes  of  despotic  power,  but  it  cannot  abide 
"the  pure,  atmosphere  of  political  liberty  and  personal 
"  freedom." 

"  It  is  the  duty  of  courts  to  be  watchful  for  the  consti- 
"  tutional  rights  of  the  citizen  and  against  any  stealthy 
"  encroachments  thereon." 

We  commend  the  readincr  of  the  entire  case  to  the 
court  and  to  the  prosecution.  As  Governor  Reynolds 
said  of  his  Bible:  "  There  is  a  great   deal  of  good  read- 


76 

PValls  V.  T/^c  State,  5  W.  V.  Reports,  532,  is  to  the 
same  effect,  and  substantially  the  same  language  as  given 
by  the  above  court.  It  is  to  preserve  this  principle  that 
the  courts  have  also  decided,  in  all  cases,  that  the  confes- 
sion of  a  defendant  cannot  be  introduced  against  him, 
until  it  is  shown  that  such  confession  was  voluntar}^,  and 
was  not  obtained  by  extortion  through  threats  or 
promises. 

In  the  case  at  bar  the  police  took  a  locksmith  for  a 
search  warrant.  Having  found  these  letters,  they  turned 
them  over  where  they  would  "do  the  most  good  "  to  Mr. 
Furthman,  assistant  state's  attorney,  and  when  Spies 
was  on  trial,  the  court  put  the  thumb-screws  to  him  and 
compelled  him  to  testify  against  himself.  To  a  novice  all 
this  looks  as  though  this  was  "  sharper  than  the  law 
allows." 


IV. 

Bombs,  fulminating  caps  and  other  articles  fractured  by 
experiments  of  the  police  after  May  4th,  with  dynamite 
claimed  to  have  been  found  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office 
and  at  Linng's  house.  Both  of  these  were  the  result  of 
unlawful  seizures,  and  thev  are  objectionable  under  the 
cases  and  principles  previously  cited.  (A.,  160;  K,  516; 
A.,  60.) 


77 


V. 


Combustible  tin  cans  found  in  the  north-western  part  of 
the  city  June  2,  1886,  four  weeks  after  the  Haymarket 
meeting.  There  was  no  pretense  of  a  connection  be- 
tween these  articles  and  the  Haymarket  meeting.  Officer 
Degan  was  not  killed  by  any  such  instrument;  no  effort 
m.ade  to  connect  the  defendants  with  these  cans  or  their 
construction;  they  were  introduced  in  connection  with 
other  illegal  testimony,  like  that  of  Most's  book,  and 
as  evidence  of  a  general  conspiracy  to  destroy  the  city. 
No  pretense  was  made  that  the  case  presents  evidence  of 
a  conspiracy  between  the  defendants  in  reference  to  de- 
stroying the  city. 


VI. 

Flags,  Mottoes,  Etc. 

These  were  also  found  in  the  Arbeiter  Zeitung  office, 
and  was  the  result  of  the  search  previously  described  and 
were  consequently  unlawful  evidence. 

The  effect  of  illegal  evidence  upon  a  verdict. 

"  Properly  speaking,"  says  Waterman  in  his  New 
Trials,  Vol.  11,  p.  613,  "  the  reception  of  illegal  evidence 
"  should  vitiate  the  verdict  without  inquiry  as  to  the 
"  probable  effect  in  any  given  case.  Its  inevitable  ten- 
"  dency  is  to  mislead,  and  the  extent  of  the  mischief  it  may 
"  have  done  cannot  always  be  calculated  or  guessed  at. 
"  *  *  *  Where  the  illegal  testimony  is  such  as  to  be 
"  a  gross  violation  of  well-settled  principles  which  govern 


78 

*'  proof,  clearly  giving  the  party  who  ofiered  it  an  unlaw- 
"  ful  advantage,  its  admission  has  been  held  -per  se  a 
"  ground  for  a  new  trial,  whether  the  jury  was  directed 
"  to  disregard  it  or  not." 

In  Penfield  v.  Carpenter^  12  Johns.,  350,  the  plaintiff 
proved  his  own  declarations  as  proof  in  support  of  his  own 
case. 

The  Supreme  court  says: 

"  The  admission  of  such  testimony  was  illegal  and  dan- 
"  gerous,  and  no  subsequent  caution  or  advice  by  the 
"judge,  that  the  jury  ought  to  disregard  what  witnesses 
"  had  sworn,  can  cure  the  irregularities.  The  law  for- 
"  bids  such  testimony,  because  it  may  have  an  influence 
"  on  honest  jurors  who  are  unconscious  of  the  impressions 
"  which  they  retain,  notwithstanding  the  effort  of  the 
"  court  to  obviate  them." 

A  distinction  in  this  regard  occurs  between  irrelevant 
testimony  and  unlaziifal  testimony. 

Irrelevant  testimony  is  where  evidence  is  competent 
from  one  point  of  view,  becomes  incompetent  because  of 
its  connection  with  something  else,  or  where  it  becomes  im- 
proper by  reason  of  a  failure  to  be  connected  with  other 
evidence.  In  such  cases  no  principle  of  law  is  violated, 
but  it  is  one  of  the  accidents  of  a  trial.  In  reference  to 
illegal  testimony,  however,  Mr.  Waterman,  Vol.  2,  p.  620, 
says  in  such  cases,  "  the  rule  rests  as  much  upon  grounds 
"  of  public  policy,  which  forbid  the  settled  and  established 
"  rules  of  evidence  to  be  infringed  with  impunity,  as  upon 
"  the  anticipated  injustice  which  might  be  wrought  by 
"  the  cases  themselves." 

In  the  cases  under  consideration  the  evidence  was 
shockingly  unlawful,  and  in  character  most  dangerous  in  its 


19 

consequences,  and  no  caution  was  interposed  by  the  judge 
as  to  its  effect.  In  shout,  the  illegal  evidence  is  the  big- 
gest half  of  the  whole  case. 

Where  these  defendants  were  at  the  time  of  the 
Haymarket  Meeting. 

Samuel  Fielden  was  at  the  meeting,  and  was  the 
last  speaker. 

Albert  R.  Parsons  was  there  a  part  of  the  tinne,  but 
was  in  Zepf's  Hall,  a  half  block  away,  drinking  beer  with 
his  wife  and  friends  when  the  bomb  exploded, 

Michael  Schwab  was  at  the  Haymarket.  He  left 
his  own  home  at  twenty  minutes  before  8;  arrived 
at  Arbeiter  Zeilung  meeting  about  8;  stopped  there, 
say,  ten  minutes:  went  to  Haymarket  after  Spies, 
in  ten  minutes;  walked  around  the  Haymarket 
before  the  meeting  hunting  Spies,  say  ten  min- 
utes; went  back  to  court  house  in  ten  minutes;  went  to 
Fullerton  avenue  in  forty-five  minutes;  spent  with  Prus- 
ser  and  hunting  committee  ten  minutes;  went  to  the 
prairie  in  ten  or  fifteen  minutes;  spoke  twenty-five  min- 
utes; went  to  a  beer  saloon  and  staid,  say,  thirty  minutes, 
and  walked   home,  reaching   there  about  1 1  o'clock^ 

August  Spies  was  present  at  the  Haymarket;  mounted 
a  wagon;  called  the  meeting  to  order;  inquired  for  Par- 
sons; went  to  hunt  him  in  the  crowd;  returned  and  made  a 
conciliatory  speech,  and  remained  on  the  wagon  until  the 
dispersion  of  the  meeting;  he  was  followed  after  his  speech 
by  Parsons  and  Fielden;  while  Fielden  was  speaking  a  rain 
cloud  appeared  in  the  north-west,  and  Spies  moved  to  ad- 
journ to  Zepf's  Hall;  Fielden  said  he  would  close  in  a  mo- 


So 

ment,  when  they  would  all  go  home;  about  half  the 
crowd  went  away,  and  the  police  then  came  and  ordered 
the  meeting  to  disperse;  Spies  then  got  down,  assisted  by 
his  brother  Henry,  and  as  he  reached  the  opposite  side- 
walk the  bomb  exploded. 

Adolph  Fisher  was  with  Wandray  at  Zepf's  Hall,  and 
was  seen  there  at  that  time  by  many  witnesses.  i^Ante, 
P^ge  34-) 

Engel  was  at  his  own  home  indulging  in  the  nation- 
ality of  drinking  beer  with  some  friends;  Waller  came 
there,  and,  on  relating  the  throwing  of  the  bomb,  Engel 
replied  that  whoever  threw  the  bomb  did  a  JooJisJi  thing. 

Oscar  Neebe  was  not  there,  but  was  at  home.  It  does 
not  appear  in  evidence  that  he  was  at  the  meeting  at  all. 

Louis  Lingg  was  also  at  his  own  home,  at  442  Sedg- 
wick street  (A.,  44);  see  testimony  of  William  Seliger 
(A.,  45). 

OTHER    ILLEGAL    evidence. 

Schnaubelt  is  doubtfully  identified  by  Gilmer  as  the 
party  who  threw  the  bomb.  The  prosecution  was  per- 
mitted over  the  objection  of  the  defendants  to  prove  that 
a  day  or  so  afterwards  he  disguised  himself  by  shaving 
off  his  beard  and  whiskers. 

Wharton,  Crim.  Ev.,  §  750,  says  that  when  a  suspected 
person  attempts  to  evade  prosecution  by  flight  or  attempts 
to  disguise  himself,  this  may  be  shown  to  prove  the  guilt 
of  the  party.,  but  he  says  also,  §  699: 

"  When  the  common  enterprise  is  at  an  end,  whether 
"  by  accomplishment  or  abandonment,  no  one  of  the  con- 
"  spirators  is  permitted  by  any  subsequent  act  or   declar- 


8i 

"  alion  of  his  own  to  aftecl  the  others.  Even  the  most 
"  solemn  admission  made  by  him  after  the  conspiracy  is 
"  at  an  end  is  not  evidence  against  accompHces.  Nor 
*'  can  the  flight  of  one  conspirator,  after  such  time,  be  put 
"  in  evidence  against  the  others." 

In  People  \.  Stanley,  47  Cal.,  112,  the  court  sa3'S:  "  At 
"  most,  it  is  but  a  circumstance  tending  to  estabhsh  a  con- 
"  sciousness  of  guilt  in  the  person  fleeing;  and  it  would 
"  be  extending  the  principle  to  a  great  length  to  hold  that 
"  the  flight  of  one  person  tends  to  establish  the  guilt  of 
"  another  person.  We  have  been  referred  to  no  case 
"  wliich  goes  to  that  ex^ent." 

This  case  was  reversed  upon  the  sole  ground  that  the 
evidence  of  the  flight  of  a  co-conspirator  was  introduced 
against  the  other  conspirators,  such  co-conspirator  who 
had  fled  not  being  on  trial.      Schnaubelt  was  not  on   trial. 

This  principle  is  so  well  established  that  it  may  be  con- 
sidered almost  elementar}'.  It  is  based  upon  the  well-set- 
tled doctrine  that  after  a  conspiracy  has  been  established, 
the  acts  and  declarations  of  one  are  evidence  against  all, 
but  after  the  accomplishment  of  the  objects  of  the  con- 
spiracy or  its  abandonment,  then  the  action  becomes  indi- 
vidual, and  each  man  acts  for  himself  and  is  responsible 
for  himself. 

We   beg  leave   to   cite   to  your    Honors   the  following 

cases: 

Coinnioinvcalth  v.  Thompson.,  99  Mass.,  444. 

State  V.    West/all,  49  Iowa,  328. 

Strady  v.  State,  5  Caldwell,  300. 

State  v.  Fuller,  39  Vermont,  74. 

Hunter  v.    Comniomvealth,  7   Grattan,  6\\. 


82 

Hudson  V.    Commomvealth^   2    Duval,    531 

(Ky)- 

Rueber  v.  State,  25  Ohio  State,  464. 
People  V.  Stevens,  47  Mich.,  411. 
People  V.  Arnold,  46  Mich.,  68. 
Spencer  v.  State,  31  Tex.,  64. 
^(^e  V.  State,  31  TexavS,  416. 
Conimomvealth  v.  Ing^raham,  7  Gray,  46, 
Ormsbee  v.  People,  53  New  York,  472. 
Morris  v.  ^to/^?,  50  Ohio,  439. 
67«/e  V.  Arnold,  48  Iowa,  566. 
5/a/^  V.  Razuler,  65  N.  C,  33-^. 
Phillips  V.  State,  6  Tex.  Appeal,  314, 


Conspiracy, 

The  defendants  were  indicted  for  murder,  and  for  aid- 
ing and  abetting,  as  accessories  of  the  murder.  The 
prosecution  might  prove,  under  this  indictment,  that  de- 
fendants agreed  to  commit  the  crime  charged,  or  threat- 
ened to  commit  it,  or  made  preparations;  but  the  doc- 
trine of  conspiracv,  as  such,  has  no  relations  to  this 
case.  Of  course,  if  the  defendants  agreed  to  do  any  act, 
and  murder  lay  in  the  path  of  it,  and  was  embraced 
within  it,  such  agreement  is  admissible,  not  because  of  a 
conspiracy,  or  its  doctrines,  but  because  an  agreement  to 
do  a  thing  embraces  an  agreement  to  do  everything  nec- 
essary to  its  accomplishment.  If  I  make  an  agreement 
to  walk  a  mile,  that  agreement  embraces  every  stepping 
necessary  to  its  accomplishment.  An  unlawful  conspir- 
acv is  a  separate  and  distinctive  crime,  which  becomes 
complete  and  is  punishable  because  of  the  ver}^  unlawful 
agreement,  and   may   be    aggravated    by  the   commission 


83 

of  the  overt  act  contemplated,  but  can  never  be  created 
by  it. 

In  trials  for  conspiracy,  it  is  necessary  to  prove  the 
union  of  the  minds  conspiring  or  the  conspiracy  first,  and 
then,  that  union  being  once  established,  the  acts  and 
declarations  of  each  become  the  acts  and  declarations  of 
all.  This  case  seems  to  have  proceeded  upon  a  sort  of 
jumble  of  all  doctrines,  and  particularly  the  law  of  con- 
spiracy was  reversed  and  the  acts  and  declarations  of 
each  person  caught  in  the  drag-net  of  this  prosecution 
were  used  to  prove  a  conspiracy  of  the  parties,  and  the 
guilt  of  all  of  the  particular  crime  charged.  The  case 
ought  to  be  reversed  for  the  jumble  alone.  These  doc- 
trines are  sustained  by  the  following  cases: 

In  the  case  of  the  State  v.  George,  7  Ired.,  321,  where 
acts  and  declarations  of  a  party  other  than  the  defendant 
were  allowed  to  be  introduced  against  him,  \ipon  the 
statement  made  by  the  prosecutor  that  he  intended  to  in- 
troduce witnesses  to  prove  a  conspiracy  between  the  pris- 
oner and  such  third  person,  a  reversal  was  ordered  upon 
this  ground.  We  quote  from  the  opinion  of  Ruffin, 
Chief  Justice,  commencing  at  page  328  of  the   report: 

"  I  think  there  ought  to  be  a  venire  de  novo  upon  the 
"  ground,  simpl}',  that  the  acts  and  declarations  of  the 
*'  woman,  which  were  given  in  evidence,  are  not  of  such 
"  a  nature  as  can  affect  the  prisoner.  To  make  the  acts 
"  and  declarations  of  one  prisoner  those  of  another,  or  so 
"  allow  them  to  operate  against  another,  it  must  appear 
"  that  there  was  a  common  interest  or  purpose  between 
*'  them." 

Mr.  Roscoe  says  (7th  Am.  Ed.,  p.  417,  §  416): 

"After  the  existence  of  a  conspiracy  is  established,  and 


84 

"  the  particular  defendants  have  been  proved  to  have  been 
"  parties  to  it,  the  acts  of  other  conspirators  may  in  all 
"  cases  be  given  in  evidence  against  them,  if  done  in  fur- 
"  therance  of  the  common  object  of  the  conspiracy,  as  also 
"  ma}^  letters  written  and  declarations  made  b}^  other 
"  conspirators,  if  they  are  part  of  the  res  gestce  of  the 
"  conspiracy  and  not  mere  admissions." 
See  also  i  Greenleaf,  Evid.,  §  iii. 

That  the  erroneous  introduction  of  evidence  is  not 
cured  by  its  subsequent  exclusion  was  decided  in  Howe  v. 
Rosine,  87  111.,  105. 

It  follows  that  the  only  admissible  evidence  was  threats 
or  an  agreement  and  other  preparations  to  commit  this 
crime.  If  that  agreement  or  preparation  was  by  one  of 
the  defendants  then,  if  the  motion  for  a  separate  trial  was 
properly  overruled,  the  evidence  of  that  agreement  should 
have  been  introduced  and  restricted,  at  the  time  of  its  ad- 
mission by  the  court,  to  that  defendant,  and  if  the  act  of 
two  of  them  it  should  have  been  restricted  to  the  two,  etc. 

If  different  parties  are  engaged  in  a  common  conspiracy, 
but  act  separately  and  independently,  only  the  party  act- 
ing can  be  held  responsible. 

Starkie  on  Ev.,  part  i,  Phila.  Edition  1842,  *324,  says: 
"  Where  it  appeared  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  to 
"  raise  war  in  the  North  riding  of  Yorkshire,  and  that 
"•  there  was  at  the  same  time  a  conspirac}^  in  the  West 
"  riding,  in  which  latter  one  it  took  place,  and  there  was 
"  no  evidence  to  show  that  those  in  the  one  riding  knew 
"  of  the  conspiracy  in  the  other,  it  was  held  that  the 
"  former  could  not  be  implicated  in  the  acts  of  the  latter, 
"  although  they  concurred  at  the  same  time  to  the  same 
"  object." 


85 

In  Kill3'ng's  Crown  Cases,  *2^,  the  court  says: 
"  In  the  next  place,  we  being  informed  that  there  was 
"  a  conspiracy  to  raise  a  war  in  the  North  riding  of 
"  Yorkshire,  as  well  as  the  West  riding,  where  some  did 
"  actually  appear  in  arms,  yet  it  could  not  be  prov^ed  that 
"  those  in  the  North  ridinir  did  aoree  to  the  risinor  that 
"  there  was  in  the  West  riding,  or  that  they  knew  any- 
"  thing  about  it,  and  so  would  not  be  within  the  first  reso- 
"  lution,"  namely,  would  not  be  responsible  for  the  acts 
of  the  conspirators  in  the  west  riding.  To  apply  this 
doctrine  in  the  case  at  bar,  if  it  should  be  conceded  upon 
the  part  of  all  the  defendants  that  there  was  a  general 
unity  of  design  to  bring  about  a  revolution  in  the  order 
of  society;  yet,  if  certain  of  the  defendants,  of  their  own 
motion,  and  without  any  concert  of  action  or  consultation 
with  the  others,  proceeded  to  do  an  act  of  their  own 
volition,  which  was  not  at  the  time  within  the  contempla- 
tion of  the  others,  such  other  defendants  would  not  be 
implicated  in  the  consequences  of  such  independent  act. 
See  also  for  the  same  doctrine,  88  North  Carolina,  627. 


ONE     CRIME    CANNOT      BE      ESTABLISHED     BY     PROOFS     OF 
ANOTHER     CRIME. 

Any  unlawful  agreement  to  do  any  other  act  than 
that  charged  in  this  indictment,  is  a  separate  and  distinct- 
ive ofiense.  Any  agreement  to  do  that  act  is  merged  in 
this  offense.  It  is  elementary  that  crimes  cannot  be  proved 
by  evidence  of  other  crimes.      Wharton  says,  §  30: 

"  A  defendant  ought  not  to  be  convicted  of  the  offense 
"  charged,  simply  because  he  has  been  guilty  of  another 
"  offense.  Hence,  when  offered  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
"  proving  his  commission  of  the  offense  on  trial,  evidence 


86 

"  of  his  participation,  either  in  act  or  design,  in  commis- 
"  sion  or  in  preparation,  in  other  independent  crimes,  can- 
"  not  be  received." 

The  same  rule  laid  down  in  Schaffner  v.  The  Common- 
wealth, 72  Penn.  State,  60.  The  law  is  thus  stated  by 
Agnew,  Judge: 

"  It  is  a  general  rule  that  a  distinct  crime,  unconnected 
"  with  that  laid  in  the  indictment,  cannot  be  given  in  evi- 
"  dence  against  a  prisoner.  It  is  not  proper  to  raise  a 
"  presumption  of  guilt  on  the  ground  that,  having  com- 
"  mitted  one  crime,  the  depravity  it  exhibits  makes  it 
"  likely  he  would  commit  another.  Logically,  the  com- 
"  mission  of  an  independent  offense  is  not  proof  in  itself 
*'  of  the  commission  of  another  crime.  Yet,  it  cannot  be 
"  said  to  be  without  influence  on  the  mind,  for,  certainly, 
"  if  one  be  shown  to  be  guilty  of  another  crime,  equally 
"  heinous,  it  will  prompt  a  more  ready  belief  that  he  might 
"  have  committed  the  one  with  which  he  is  charged;  it 
"  therefore  predisposes  the  mind  of  the  juror  to  believe 
"  the  prisoner  guilty.  To  make  one  criminal  act  evidence 
"  of  another,  the  connection  between  them  must  have  ex- 
"  isted  in  the  mind  of  the  actor,  linking  them  together  for 
"  some  purpose  he  intended  to  accomplish;  or  it  must  be 
"  necessary  to  identify  the  person  of  the  actor  by  a  con- 
"  nection  which  shows  that  he  who  committed  the  one 
"  must  have  done  the  other.  Without  this  obvious  con- 
"  nection,  it  is  not  only  unjust  to  the  prisoner  to  compel 
"  him  to  acquit  himself  of  two  oftenses  instead  of  one, 
"  but  it  is  detrimental  to  justice  to  burthen  a  trial  with 
"  multiplied  issues  that  tend  to  confuse  and  mislead  the 
"  jury." 

This  rule  has  been  very  strongly  laid    down    by  this 


87 

court.     It  is  said  in  Kribs  v.  The  People,   82   111.,  424,  a^ 
follows  (p.  426) : 

"  On  the  trial  the  court  allowed  the  people,  over  the 
"  objection  of  the  defendant  (who  was  indicted  for  em- 
"  bezzlement),  to  prove  that  the  defendant  had  collected  or 
"  received  money  belonging  to  other  parties,  and  on  several 
"  occasions,  which  he  had  fraudulently  converted  to  his 
"  own  use.  This  was  error.  The  evidence  should  have 
"  been  confined  to  the  charge  for  which  the  defendant  was 
"  indicted.  On  the  trial  of  this  indictment  the  law  did  not 
"  require  him  to  come  prepared  to  meet  other  charges^ 
"  nor  does  it  follow,  because  he  may  have  been  guilty  of 
"  other  like  offenses,  that  he  was  guilty  of  the  offenses 
"  charged  in  the  indictment." 

"  The  evidence  should  have  been  confined  strictly  to 
"  the  offense  charged  in  the  indictment.  This  was  not, 
"  however,  done,  but  improper  testimony  allowed  to  go 
"■  to  the  jury,  which  could  not  fail  to  prejudice  the  rights 
"  of  the  defendant." 

For  the  error  above  indicated  alone  the  case  was  re- 
versed. 

To  the  same  effect,  we  cite  Watts  v.  The  State,  5  W. 
Va.,  532. 

So  in   Dcvine  v.    The  People,   100  111.,   290,  it  is  said  ' 
(page  293): 

"  In  view  of  *  *  *  the  consideration  that  the  life  of 
"the  accused  was  involved  in  the  issue,  it  became  highly 
"  important  to  him,  as  well  as  essential  to  the  due  admin- 
"  istration  of  justice  in  the  prosecution  of  the  case,  that 
"  the  state  should  be  held  to  at  least  a  substantial,  if  not 
"  a  strict,  observance  of  the  well-established  rules  govern- 
"  ing  the  production  of  testimony,  in  its  efforts  to  estab- 
"  lish  the  charge  against  him.     The  trial  should  have  been 


*'  conducted  with  the  utmost  fairness,  and  no  matter  or 
"  thing  should  have  been  admitted  in  evidence,  against 
"  the  objections  of  the  accused,  which  did  not  prove  or 
"  tend  to  prove  the  issue,  more  especially  if  the  evidence, 
"  when  admitted,  would  have  had  an  improper  influence 
"  upon  the  minds  of  the  jur}^,  or  place  the  accused  at  a 
"  disadvantage  before  them." 

The  same  rule  was  applied  in  Sutton  v.  'Johnson,  61 
111.,  209. 

Under  this  head,  we  desire  to  quote  further  from  i 
Phillips  on  Evidence,  765,  766    (page  644,  5th  Am.  Ed.): 

"In  criminal  cases,  it  is  purely  the  duty  of  courts  of 
"justice  to  prevent  evidence  being  given  which  would  sup- 
"  port  a  charge  against  the  prisoner  of  which  he  was  not 
"  previously  apprised,  under  the  pretext  of  its  supporting 
"  some  presumptson  of  the  offense  which  is  the  subject  of 
"the  indictment.  In  treason,  therefore,  no  evidence  is  to 
"be  admitted  of  any  overt  act  that  is  not  expressly  laid 
"in  the  indictment.  This  was  the  rule  at  common  law. 
"  It  is  again  prescribed  and  enforced  by  the  statute  of 
"  William  III,  which  contains  an  express  provision  to  that 
"effect  in  consequence  of  some  encroachments  that  had 
"  been  made  in  several  state  prosecutions.  The  meaning 
"  of  the  rule  is  not  that  the  whole  detail  of  facts  should 
"  be  set  forth,  but  that  no  overt  act,  amounting  to  a 
"  distinct,  independent  charge,  though  falling  under  the 
"  same  head  of  treason,  shall  be  given  in  evidence,  unless 
"it  be  expressly  laid  in  the  indictment;  but  still,  not  con- 
"ducedtothe  proof  of  an}^  of  the  overt  acts  that  are 
"  made,  it  may  be  admitted  as  evidence  of  such  overt 
"•  acts." 

Roscoe,  in  his  work  upon  criminal  evidence,  7th  Am. 
Ed.,  §  90,  p.  90,  states  the  rule: 


89 

"It  may  be  laid  down,  as  a  general  rule,  that  in  criminal 
"  as  in  civil  cases  the  evidence  shall  be  confined  to  the 
"  point  in  issue.  In  criminal  proceedings  it  has  been 
"  observed  that  the  necessity  is  stronger,  if  possible,  than 
*'  in  civil  cases  of  strictly  enforcing  this  rule;  for  where  a 
"  prisoner  is  charged  with  an  offense,  it  is  of  the  utmost 
"  importance  to  him  that  the  facts  laid  before  the  jury 
"  shall  consist  exclusively  of  the  transaction  which  forms 
*'  the  subject  of  the  indictment  and  matters  relating 
"  thereto,  which  alone  he  could  be  expected  to  come  pre- 
"  pared  to  answer." 

In  Kincliillozv  v.  Tlie  State,  5  Humph.,  9,  the  court 
say  (p.  12): 

"  It  is  well  settled  that  no  proof  of  the  admission  of  one 
'"  distinct  substantive  offense  shall  be  received  upon  a  trial 
"  for  the  commission  of  another;  a  fortiori,  shall  not  state- 
"  ments  of  an  intention  to  commit  it;  the  only  tendency  of 
"  such  testimony  necessarily  is  to  prejudice  the  minds  of 
"  a  jury,  as  it  can  by  no  possibility  establish  or  elucidate 
"  the  crime  charcjed." 

The  court  in  3  Caldwell's  Reports,  362,  Wiley  v.  The 
State,  uses  the  following  language  (p.  372):  "The 
"  general  rule  is  that  nothing  shall  be  given  in  evidence 
"  which  does  not  directly  tend  to  the  proof  or  disproof  of 
"  the  matter  in  issue;  and  evidence  of  a  distinct  substantive 
"offense  cannot  be  admitted  in  support  of  another  offense." 

The  doctrine  of  these  cases  and  this  principle  applies  to 
the  vast  amount  of  utterances  and  indefinite  purposes  of 
some  of  these  defendants,  but  which  do  not  constitute  an 
agreement  or  preparation  to  commit  the  particular  offense 
or  any  offense. 


go 


ACTS  MUST  BE  UNDER  COMMON  DESIGN. 

Two  persons  having  made  an  unlawful  agreement,  it  is 
only  acts  and  declarations  done  in  furtherance  of  the  com- 
mon desis'n  which  are  admissible. 

In  People  V.  Stanley,  47  Cal.,  113,  the  court  used  the 
following  language  (p.  118): 

"The  rule  is  well  settled  that  the  acts  of  an  accomplice 
"  are  not  evidence  against  the  accused,  unless  they  con- 
"  stitute  part  of  the  res  g'estcv,  and  occur  during  the  pend- 
"  ency  of  the  criminal  enterprise,  and  are  in  furtherance 
"of  its  objects." 

In  Slate  v.  George,  7  Ired.,  321,  the  court  say: 
"  Before  the  acts  and  declarations  of  one  of  the  con- 
"  spirators  can  be  i^eceived  against  another,  it  must  be 
"  shown  that  the}-  were  acts  done  and  declarations  uttered 
'■'■  i}ifitrt/ieraiice  of  the  comiiioii  design,  or  in  execution  of 
"  the  conspiracy.  The}'  must  be  acts  and  declarations  of 
"  the  one  that  were  authorized  by  the  other,  or  such  as 
"  became  necessary  in  the  prosecution  of  the  joint  busi- 
"  ness  or  criminal  conspiracy." 

In  Rex  V.  Hardy,  25th  State  Trials,  i,  the  majority  of 
the  judges  held  that  a  letter  purporting  to  be  written  fron^k 
one  alleged  conspirator  to  another  was  not  admissible  in 
evidence  save  as  against  the  party  writing  it,  the  court 
usintr  the  folio wina^  lanj^uao-e:  "  A  bare  relation  of  facts 
"  by  an  alleged  conspirator  to  a  stranger  was  merely  an 
"  admission  which  might  affect  himself,  but  which  could 
"  not  affect  a  co-conspirator,  since  it  was  not  an  act  done 
"  in  the  prosecution  of  that  conspiracy."  This  rule  is  ap- 
proved by  Mr.  Starkie  in  his  valuable  work  on  evidence. 
2d  Ed.,  Vol.  2,  page  326. 


91 


A  CONVICTION  OF    THESE  DEFENDANTS  WAS  HAD  WITHOUT 
ANY  PROOF  OF  A  CORPUS  DELICTI. 

What  is  a  corpus  delicti?  Simply,  the  body  or  essence 
of  the  wrong.  What  is  the  corpus  delicti  or  body  of  the 
wrong  in  the  case  of  a    principal  charged  with  homicide? 

It  is  that  the  defendant  did  the  criminal  act.  What  is 
the  corpus  delicti  \n  reference  to  an  accessory?  It  is  that 
he  aided  and  abetted  in  the  killing. 

Wharton's  Crim.  Ev.,  3,325,  and  note  as  follows,  viz: 
"  The  corpus  delicti^  the  proof  of  which  is  essential  to 
"  sustain  a  conviction,  consists  of  a  criminal  act;  and  to 
"  sustain  a  conviction  there  must  be  proof  of  the  defend- 
"  ant's  guilty  agenc}^  in  the   production  of  such  act." 

"The  latter  feature,  namely:  criminal  agency,  is  often 
*'  lost  sight  of,  but  is  as  essential  as  is  the  object  itself  of 
"  the  crime.  Acts^  in  some  shape,  are  essential  to  the 
"  corpus  delicti,  so  far  as  concerns  the  guilt  of  the  party 
"  accused.  A  may  have  designed  the  death  of  the  de- 
"  ceased,  yet  if  that  death  has  been  caused  by  another, 
"  A,  no  matter  how  morally  guilty,  is  not  amenable  to  the 
"  penalties  of  the  law,  if  he  has  done  and  advised  noth- 
"  ing  in  respect  to  the  death." 

In  this  case  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence  of  corpus 
delicti  as  to  any  of  the  defendants,  exxept  in  tlie  testi- 
mony of  Gilmer,  which   is  completely  overthrown. 

The  Counseling  to  Constitute  Accessoryship. 

Wharton,  in  his  Criminal  Law,  9th  edition.  Vol.  i.  Sec. 
226,  note  entitled  "  Modes  of  Instigation,"  says:  "  Coun- 
*'  seling,  to   come  up  to   the  definition,  must   be  special. 


92 

"  Mere  general  counsel,  for  instance,  that  all  property 
"  should  be  regarded  and  held  as  common  will  not  con- 
"  stitute  the  party  offering  it  accessory  before  the  fact  to 
"  a  larceny;  free-love  publications  will  not  constitute  their 
"  authors  technically  parties  to  sexual  offenses  which  these 
"  publications  may  have  stimulated.  Several  youthful 
"  highway  robbers  have  said  that  they  were  led  into 
"  crime  by  reading  'Jack  Shepard  '  ;  but  the  author  of 
"  '  Jack  Shepard  '  was  not  an  accessory  before  the  fact 
"  to  the  robberies  to  which  he  thus  added  impulse." 
u  *  *  -s  What  human  judge  can  determine  that  there 
"  is  such  a  necessary  connection  between  one  man's  advice 
"  and  another  man's  action,  as  to  make  the  former  the 
"  cause  of  the  latter?" 

I  know  of  no  more  appropriate  illustration  of  the  legal 
status  and  liability  of  the  defendants  in  relation  to  their  in- 
temperate utterances,  or  in  relation  to  their  liability  under 
all  the  evidence,  than  to  recall  the  history  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  republican  party.  It  was  a  party  which  had  for 
its  object  the  reformation  of  the  civil  society  and  the  civil 
institutions  in  this  country.  The  most  radical  of  its  leaders 
characterized  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  "« 
"  leag^ue  zvitli  hcUT  Underground  railroads  were  every- 
where established  leadincr  from  Mason  and  Dixon's  line 
to  Canada,  and  people  conspired  to  do  the  act,  contrary 
to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  of  aid- 
ing and  abetting  the  slave  in  his  escape.  If  he  were  ar- 
rested b}'  the  officers  of  the  law,  whose  duty  it  was  to 
arrest  him,  people  were  guilty  of  a  conspiracy  to  rescue 
him,  and  they  often  committed  the  overt  act  of  such  unlaw- 
ful conspiracv  by  actually  rescuing  him  and  aiding  in  his 
escape.  The  storrn  finally  culminated,  and  bye  and  b3'e 
old  John  Brown,  caught  up  by  the  inspiration  of  the  oc- 


93 

casion,  committed  an  offense  against  the  laws  of  Virginia 
at  Harper's  Ferry. 

The  question  arising  is:  was  everybody  who  made 
speeches  for  this  party  guilty  of  the  offense  of  which  John 
Brown  was  convicted?  The  distinction  exists  in  that  case 
as  in  this.  Everybody  who  knew  John  Brown's  purposes, 
and  knowing  them,  aided,  assisted  and  abetted  him,  were 
equally  guilty  with  him.  But  those  who  did  not  know  his 
purposes,  and  who  did  not  aid  and  abet  him,  in  his  unlaw- 
w-  ful  act,  was  not  guilty,  however  intemperate  may  have 
been  their  speeches,  and  whatever  may  have  been  their 
general  advice.  The  other  side  of  this  question,  and  the 
-  side  taken  by  the  prosecution  and  the  court,  is  to  say  that 
John  Brown's  raid  was  a  natural  outgrowth  of  the  repub- 
lican party.  If  there  had  been  no  republican  party  there 
would  have  been  no  John  Brown's  raid,  and  therefore, 
that  all  republicans  who  made  speeches,  and  believed  in 
the  Utopian  idea  of  a  change  in  society,  for  the  benefit 
of  a  class,  were  hke  the  anarchists,  and  were  ^articefs 
criminis  with  old  John  Brown,  and  ought  to  be  hung. 

The  days  come  and  go,  and  this  brief  must  be  filed  to- 
morrow, but  it  is  not  done.  "  The  little  foxes  that  spoil 
the  vines  "  have  got  their  work  in  every  day,  and  have 
rendered  greater  progress  impossible. 

Therefore,  I  must  refer  your  Honors  to  the  able  brief 
prepared  by  Mr.  William  P.  Black  and  Messrs.  Salomon 
and  Zeisler  upon  the  two  questions  of  the  impanelment  of 
the  jury  and  the  instructions  of  the  court. 

"  THEY    WANT    THEM    ALL  HANGED." 

The  considerate  portion  of  the  community  want  the 
plowshare  of  justice  held  with  a  firm  but  intelligent  hand. 


94 

and  that  it  plow  straight  through — that  the  defendants 
should  be  hung  if  guilty  of  murder,  but  not  hung  if  not 
guilty  of  murder. 

The  man  at  his  business,  over-anxious  and  over-worked, 
sees  in  the  movement  of  these  people  simpl}'  an  interrup- 
tion, and  he  wants  them  hanged  to  get  rid  of  the  ques- 
tion. The  timid  lady  shivers  with  fear,  and  says:  "  Why, 
"  they  will,  if  released,  throw  bombs  through  our  win- 
"  dows,  and  blow  up  our  houses."  The  hard-hearted  and 
the  exacting  want  to  continue  their  oppressions  and  ex- 
actions, and  they  want  them  all  hanged.  All  these  want 
them  hanged,  not  for  the  reason  that  it  is  known  they 
have  been  guilty  of  murder,  but  because  the  fixed  order 
of  things  by  these  agitations  is  disturbed,  "  Don't  Car- 
"  negie's  men  at  Pittsburgh  get  more  a  day  than  Krupp's 
"  men  in  Europe?"  "  Yes,"  and  Krupp's  men  in  Europe 
get  more  than  men  in  Central  Africa.  All  mankind  are 
moving  to  a  higher  plane,  and  it  is  harder  and  more 
difficult  to  grind  the  face  of  the  poor  than  it  was  formerly. 

The  labor  that  moves  the  world  may  not,  as  a  class, 
be  the  most  intelligent.  It  may  not  know  hozv.  Like 
a  man  fastened  face  downward  and  stretched  out  to 
stakes  on  the  grass  of  the  western  plains  by  Indians, 
he  bears  it  until  his  nervous  system  gives  way,  when  he 
will  shriek  and  struggle,  knowing  there  is  a  sore  place 
somewhere.  We  are  building  school  houses  to  teach  the 
children  of  labor  better  and  how. 

Virginia  wanted  John  Brown  hung  that  she  might  fold 
her  arms  and  sleep  in  peace.  She  did  hang  him  and  his 
companions,  but  she  did  not  sleep  in  peace. 

These  men  are  strangers  in  our  land,  houseless  and 
homeless,  and  yet  I  have  never  before  seen  the  hard  hand 
of  toil  respond  with  its  quarters  of  a  dollar  and  little  gifts 


95 

here,  there,  everywhere,  and  with  such  wide-spread  sym- 
pathy— until  these  poverty-stricken  defendants  have  larger 
and  readier  means  of  defense  than  any  persons  I  have 
ever  defended  or  known.  Criminals,  under  such  circum- 
stances, would  have  shared  the  fate  of  the  neglected  and 
the  poor.      What  does  this  mean? 

We  all  remember  the  celebrated  controversy  between 
the  wind  and  the  sun,  told  b}'- old  yEsop,  in  which  the  two 
entered  into  a  debate  as  to  which  was  the  stronger,  and 
it  was  to  be  decided  by  an  attack  upon  a  traveler  upon 
whom  they  were  looking  down,  and  the  victor  should  be  he 
who  could  make  him  take  off  a  great-coat  he  was  wearing 
first.  The  wind  tried  it,  and  blew  about  him  and  made  him 
shiver  and  his  coat-tails  flutter,  but  he  only  hugged  it  the 
closer.  The  sun  finally  took  its  turn.  It  came  out  with 
its  warm  and  peaceful  rays.  It  warmed  the  glebe  and 
the  man,  and  very  soon  he  began  to  wipe  the  sweat  from 
his  brow  and  pulled  off  his  coat.  Ma3'be  we  can  learn 
something  from  this  simple  story  which  has  come  down 
the  ages  from  a  period  in  the  world's  history  in  which 
labor  was  at  complete  rest. 

The  truth  is,  a  man  wants  more  than  he  used  to  want. 
He  may  labor,  he  may  live  in  a  hut,  but  whenever 
he  sees  other  people  have  comforts  he  wants  them  for 
himself.  We  never  want  and  long  for  what  we  do  not 
know  to  exist.  The  wealthy  cannot  have  luxuries  with- 
out letting  the  poor  know  it.  A  workman  cannot  walk  at 
night  by  the  house  well  warmed  and  full  of  brightness 
and  good  cheer  without  wishing  it  were  his  own 
home.  The  wife  of  the  workman  will  see  the  wife  of 
his  employer  and  envy  her.  His  daughter  cannot,  as  she 
works  at  the  market-price  of  labor,  but  sigh  '-for  some- 
thing   better    than    she    has    known,"  and    think,  as    she 


96 

trudges  to  her  sewing  machine,  how  much  nicer  it  would 
be  to  go  to  a  piano.  Humanity  lies  in  a  p3n-amid  and 
every  man  and  woman  envies  the  man  or  woman  next 
higher.  Even  the  apex  man  is  not  content.  "  Uneasy  lies 
"  the  head  that  wears  the  crown."  And  yet  the  greatest 
hopes  of  humanity  rest  in  the  fact  that  all  its  classes 
and  individuals  are  always  and  everywhere  bearing 

"  A  banner  with  the  strange  device, 

Excelsior." 

The  truth  is,  the  peoples  of  the  world  are  inseparably 
linked  together.  Mankind  are  brothers,  and  they  are 
held  together  as  the  world  itself  is  held;  you  cannot, 
without  breaking  things,  produce  the  elevation  of  the 
mountain  without  lifting  up  the  country  adjoining.  The 
rich  hold  in  exclusiveness,  by  a  doubtful  tenure,  all  the 
delights,  the  honors  and  the  excitements  of  life,  so  long 
as  the  millions  enjoy  only  a  heritage  of  unenlightened 
labor  and  unrewarded  toil.  We  must  either  all  go  back 
to  barbarism,  where  equality  and  contentment  reign,  or 
the  rich  must  lift  up  the  poor  in  proportion  as  they  them- 
selves are  lifted  up. 

Let,  therefore,  the  man  of  wealth,  instead  of  barricad- 
ing the  doors  of  his  home,  and  seeking  shelter  in  bars  and 
bolts  and  iron  gates,  take  his  basket  of  overflowing- 
plenty  upon  his  arm  and  seek  out  the  homes  of  squalor 
and  want  and  find  his  safety  and  the  safety  of  his  home 
in  the  universal  brotherhood  of  man. 

Chicago,  March  i,  1S87. 

Leonard  S\V]<:tt, 
Of  Coiuisd  for  the  Defendants. 


.323 


